Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Decello, 523 P.2d 74.

39 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Arizona Corp. Commission 12 P.3d 1208 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
State v. Berger 828 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1992
the supreme court held that a defendant who is represented by counsel and who is competent to stand trial need not be given, “absent other facts,” a further hearing as to his competency to waive his right to a jury.
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
State v. Bishop 781 P.2d 581 Ariz. 1989
State v. Romers 766 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Romers 766 P.2d 623 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See Rule 17, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure
State v. Cameron 704 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
State v. Cameron 704 P.2d 1355 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sieling
State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
State v. Evans 610 P.2d 35 Ariz. 1980
: “A defendant who waives the assistance of counsel in a criminal trial is by that very act doing something that calls into question his rationality, and the United States Supreme Court has indicated that greater care must be taken in allowing a person to waive his right to an attorney than it does
State v. Fierro 603 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1979
State v. Fierro 603 P.2d 74 Ariz. 1979
State v. Morris 590 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
State v. Morris 590 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
al rights is necessary only where sufficient evidence of incompetency exists, , or a real doubt about the defendant’s competency appears, , or the factual support for a finding of competency is inadequate or conflicting
State v. Wagner 561 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1977
State v. Wagner 561 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Rodriquez 558 P.2d 717 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
State v. Decello 550 P.2d 633 Ariz. 1976
State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
State v. Contreras 542 P.2d 17 Ariz. 1975
State v. Duggan 540 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1975
State v. Duggan 540 P.2d 123 Ariz. 1975
after considering Sieling , we said: “Admittedly, the trial court did not specifically direct its findings to defendant’s specific competency to waive his constitutional right to a jury.
State v. Vassar 533 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1975
State v. Vassar 533 P.2d 544 Ariz. 1975
State v. Crowley 528 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1974
State v. Crowley 528 P.2d 834 Ariz. 1974
State v. Byrd 527 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Byrd 527 P.2d 777 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Ellison 526 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1974
State v. Ellison 526 P.2d 706 Ariz. 1974
State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
State v. Robinson 526 P.2d 396 Ariz. 1974
(Emphasis added) , , we considered Sieling, supra, and Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 , 86 S.Ct.
State v. Jackson 524 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
State v. Jackson 524 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1974
where the Court — in discussing Westbrook v. Arizona — said: “We do not believe, however, that the United States Supreme Court in West-brook, supra, mandates that a defendant who is represented by counsel and is competent to stand trial must be given, absent other facts, a further h