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. Evans, 610 P.2d 35.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
  • State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez 525 P.3d 1085 Ariz. 2023
    (“In any determination of whether there has been a competent waiver of constitutional rights, the better practice would be for the trial judge to make specific findings, but if the record is adequate[,] the absence of specific findings is not reversible error.”).
  • State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966)).
  • State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
  • State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad 513 P.3d 1095 Ariz. 2022
    See Gunches, 225 Ariz. at 25 ¶ 12 (deciding “Gunches was not a ‘gray-area’ defendant” 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. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Esposito Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    -04 (1980) (holding defendant properly waived counsel, even after being diagnosed “as a paranoid schizophrenic” during competency proceedings).
  • State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Ward Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    ¶ 30 (2005) (holding that a defendant was competent to stand trial despite the fact he was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder causing him to believe in a vast conspiracy involving his counsel, the police, the court, and several high-level government officials); (defendant found competent despite suffering from paranoid schizophrenia).
  • 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
    (determining absence of written waiver pursuant to Rule 6 is not reversible error and absence of explicit findings are not reversible error where record is adequate to find constitutional waiver).
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • In Re Mh Xxxx-Xxxxxx 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    at 79, ¶¶ 23-24 , 170 P.3d at 688 (analogizing colloquy to waive right to counsel in competency hearing to colloquy of such waiver in criminal context when defendant was mentally ill but competent to stand trial) ( , ).
  • In re MH 2007-001275 196 P.3d 819 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    at 79, ¶¶ 23-24 , 170 P.3d at 688 (analogizing colloquy to waive right to counsel in competency hearing to colloquy of such waiver in criminal context when defendant was mentally ill but competent to stand trial) ( , ).
  • In Re Jesse M. 170 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re Jesse M. 170 P.3d 683 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    ¶ 23 Our supreme court made a
  • In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In re MH 2006-000749 152 P.3d 1201 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (“[Cjourts indulge every reasonable presumption against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.”).
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
  • State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
    (mere diagnosis of mental illness does not necessarily preclude valid waiver); , (same).
  • 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
  • State v. Mott 784 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Mott 784 P.2d 278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    Factors the court can consider include a defendant’s background and experience, Dungan ; any current or past problems relating to mental competency, Hartford ; his understanding of his constitutional rights and the role of counsel within the legal system, , as well as defendant’s conduct
  • State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Michael 778 P.2d 1278 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Dungan 718 P.2d 1010 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Harding 670 P.2d 383 Ariz. 1983
  • State v. Fayle 658 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Fayle 658 P.2d 218 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Howland 658 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982