Cited by

¶16 Thus, although Melendez was “technically without personal notice of his trial date,” he failed to appear at any proceedings after the Donald hearing or “keep in contact with trial counsel to ascertain his trial date.”

We otherwise review the trial court’s decision to try Contreras in absentia for an abuse of discretion, considering her absence “in light of the whole record,” (quoting United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 527 (1985)).

proceeding against h[er] may be found to have waived h[er] right to be present there if the record indicates criminal proceedings commenced in h[er] presence, that [s]he absconded knowing of h[er] right to attend future proceedings, and that h[er] disappearance has made it [im]possible to contact h[er] with reference to these proceedings.” Cook, 115 Ariz. at 149; (concluding 4 STATE v. MCSHEA Decision of the Court superior court properly found the defendant’s absence voluntary, even though the d

(absence voluntary where defendant did not have personal notice of the continued trial dates but failed to maintain contact with counsel or appear at subsequent proceedings despite the superior court admonishing defendant of the consequences of absence).

(“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”) ( (198

The court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had actual notice of the date and time of the proceeding, notice of the right to be present, and notice that the proceeding would go forward in the defendant’s absence.”); ().

P. 9.1 (“[A] defendant’s voluntary absence waives the right to be present at any proceeding.”); (“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”).

see also Brewer v. Raines, 670 F.2d 117, 119 (9th Cir. 1982).

“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.” (citation omitted); see also Ariz. R. Crim.

A trial court “may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”

(defendant was found to be voluntarily absent, even without actual notice of trial date, when informed that failure to attend pretrial conference could result in a trial in absentia).

“The trial court may infer that a defendant's absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”

“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”

“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceedings would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”

-28, ¶¶ 12-14, -43 (App. 2005); (holding absence voluntary where defendant did not have personal notice of trial date, but failed to stay in contact with trial counsel to ascertain trial date).

See Muniz-Caudillo, , (trial judge did not abuse its discretion even though defendant did not have actual notice of trial date); see also Ochoa, , (no abuse of discretion even though defendant did not have personal notice of his trial date).

(reviewing the trial court's decision to go forward with the defendant's trial in absentia for abuse of discretion).

Gagnon, 470 U.S. at 528-29 , 105 S.Ct.

“The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”