Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Smith, 407 P.2d 74.
- State v. Gessner 626 P.2d 1119 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
-
State v. Gessner
626 P.2d 1119
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Fuentes, 26 Ariz.App.
- State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Mendoza 481 P.2d 844 Ariz. 1971
- State v. Briley 476 P.2d 852 Ariz. 1970
-
State v. Briley
476 P.2d 852
Ariz. 1970
[1965], The defendant disagrees with the rule of law heretofore enunciated in State v. Smith, supra.
- State v. Scott 461 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- State v. Scott 461 P.2d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
- Smith v. Eyman 451 P.2d 877 Ariz. 1969
-
Overruled
Smith v. Eyman
451 P.2d 877
Ariz. 1969
Because of our holding in the Reagan case, and in view of the holding of the United States Supreme Court in the Burgett case, , to the extent that anything therein might be contrary to Reagan and Burgett.
- State v. Sheffield 451 P.2d 607 Ariz. 1969
-
State v. Sheffield
451 P.2d 607
Ariz. 1969
6, 1969) ; , ; , ; , ; , .
- State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Miranda 450 P.2d 364 Ariz. 1969
- State v. Frand 445 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Frand 445 P.2d 553 Ariz. 1968
- State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- State v. Superior Court of Pima County 436 P.2d 948 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1968
- State v. Moses 420 P.2d 560 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Moses
420 P.2d 560
Ariz. 1966
: “Defendant contends that the court erred in not appointing counsel to represent him at his preliminary hearing.
- State v. Wise 419 P.2d 342 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Wise
419 P.2d 342
Ariz. 1966
How *317 ever defendant has failed to show that he was prejudicially affected by the absence of counsel at this stage, , is applicable here: “Defendant contends that the court erred in not appointing counsel to represent him at his preliminary hearing.
- State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
- State v. Dodd 418 P.2d 571 Ariz. 1966
- Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of County of Pima 417 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Johnson v. Board of Supervisors of County of Pima 417 P.2d 546 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Burke v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 416 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Burke v. SUPERIOR COURT, IN AND FOR COUNTY OF PIMA 416 P.2d 997 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- State v. Chambers 414 P.2d 742 Ariz. 1966
-
State v. Chambers
414 P.2d 742
Ariz. 1966
where the defendant alleged er^ ror in the trial court by its failure to appoint counsel at his preliminary hearing, we stated: “We have held that failure to assign counsel prior to a preliminary examination is not error, unless a defendant’s position is prejudiced thereby.
- Yanez v. State 412 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
- Yanez v. State 412 P.2d 284 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966