DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Martin, 426 P.2d 639.

97 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
  • State of Arizona v. Dewayne Esaw 554 P.3d 14 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
    The Arizona Constitution expressly guarantees “criminal defendants the right to represent themselves at trial.” -45 (1967) (Arizona’s constitution “vest[s] in a defendant the ‘explicit’ right to defend himself” ()); Ariz. Const. art. II, § 24 (“In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
    efendant” and “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Gunches competent to waive counsel and represent himself” at trial); –24 (1994) (rejecting defendant’s argument that his “waiver of counsel was invalid”); (affirming defendant as competent and his waiver of counsel as knowledgeable); (applying the test of “whether one is legally capable of waiving counsel”).
  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Hill Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    As a result, “it is within the trial court’s discretion to deny a defendant the right to continue his own defense if he acts in such a manner as to seriously disrupt the proceedings, either by refusing to exercise the decorum necessary to ensuring an orderly proceeding or by denying the court due respect.” ().
  • State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    The right to testify, however, is waived if the defendant does not make the desire to testify known to the superior court at trial; it cannot be raised “as an afterthought.” ¶¶ 45-47 (2011).
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Carrier Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (stating that the Arizona Constitution “vest[s] in a defendant the ‘explicit’ right to defend himself”).
  • State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    -45 , -42 (1967) (constitution “vest [s] in a defendant the ‘explicit’ right to defend himself’).
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Prasertphong 75 P.3d 675 Ariz. 2003
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    (article II, § 24 of Arizona Constitution “vests” in accused “ ‘explicit’ ” right to defend self).
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
  • State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
    2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); , , but only so long as the defendant “is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 173 , 104 S.Ct.
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Gulbrandson 906 P.2d 579 Ariz. 1995
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
    stances *323 known to the trial judge, there was or should have been a good faith doubt about the defendant’s “ability to understand the nature and consequences of the waiver, or to participate intelligently in the proceedings and to make a reasoned choice among the alternatives presented.” Harding, 834 F.2d at 856 ; see also Cuffle v. Goldsmith, 906 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir.1990)
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
  • State v. Henry 863 P.2d 861 Ariz. 1993
    this court said: The fundamental question then is not one of the wisdom of defendant’s judgment but whether the defendant’s waiver of counsel was made in an intelligent, understanding and competent manner.
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Russell 858 P.2d 674 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    Id., 160 Ariz. at 182, 772 P.2d at 4 ; , (court may consider background, experience and understanding); , (“All factors relating to the determination of whether the defendant knew exactly what he was doing when he waived his right to counsel are relevant.”).
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Brewer 826 P.2d 783 Ariz. 1992
    not one of legal skills.” , (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Rigsby 772 P.2d 1 Ariz. 1989
    (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct.
  • State v. Raseley 715 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Raseley 715 P.2d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. McCall 677 P.2d 920 Ariz. 1983
    Such waiver is effective, , State v. Thornton, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Hartford 636 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1981
    * * * All factors relating to the determination of whether the defendant knew exactly what he was doing when he waived his right to counsel are relevant.”
  • State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Nadler 628 P.2d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Rodriguez 612 P.2d 484 Ariz. 1980