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. McWilliams, 446 P.2d 229.

26 citing documents.

  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Clark 2 P.3d 89 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
  • State v. Salinas 631 P.2d 519 Ariz. 1981
    Although we have held that the constitutional right to adequate and effective assistance of counsel necessarily includes allowing counsel reasonable time to prepare his defense, , , we believe that the rule enunciated in Jackson must be carefully applied and not turned into a per se rule every time a claim of late appointment of counsel is made.
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
  • State v. Laffoon 610 P.2d 1045 Ariz. 1980
    1498 , 55 L.Ed.2d 524 (1978)
  • State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Blodgette 590 P.2d 931 Ariz. 1979
    State v. Ahumada, 25 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Jackson 534 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
  • State v. Jackson 534 P.2d 281 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
    1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); , Nettleton v. State, 320 A.2d 743 (Del.Supr.1974), we cannot agree with the State’s ad hoc approach to effective assistance of counsel wherein it asserts that unless a review of the record shows that the representation was a “farce or mockery” no prejudice has been shown.
  • State v. Miller 529 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Miller 529 P.2d 220 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
  • State v. Jones 521 P.2d 978 Ariz. 1974
    but this case can be distinguished because the denial of adequate representation was the result of the unavailability, until three days before trial, of transcripts of both a former trial and of the preliminary hearing.
  • State v. Downing 511 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Downing 511 P.2d 638 Ariz. 1973
  • State v. Johnson 503 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
  • State v. Johnson 503 P.2d 829 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
    an adequate record was made disclosing, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, that appointed counsel should have been granted the continuance that he requested.
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
  • State v. Williams 499 P.2d 97 Ariz. 1972
    It is true that Rule 145 (C), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S., allows for continuances, But we have stated, , that the broad discretion of the trial judge on this matter will not be disturbed unless the discretion has been shown to have been so abused as to prejudice defendant.
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Miller 491 P.2d 485 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1971
  • State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Kendall 481 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1971
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
  • State v. Adair 470 P.2d 671 Ariz. 1970
    wherein this court held that the trial court’s forcing defense counsel to trial with only three days notice was reversible error.