Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. De Nistor, 694 P.2d 237.

89 citing documents.

State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Sanchez-Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
(“Once a court accepts a plea of guilty, the accused is put in jeopardy [and a] court may not, therefore, sua sponte, enter an order vacating the acceptance of the plea of guilty and set the case for trial.”).
State of Arizona v. Kevin Dunbar 550 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Kevin Dunbar 550 P.3d 142 Ariz. 2024
State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Sueing Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Nor does it “exist in a vacuum.” State v. De Nistor, 10 STATE v. SUEING Decision of the Court
State v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Pavey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State of Arizona v. Miguel Rios 502 P.3d 474 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2021
State v. Botsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Botsford Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Id.; -36, ¶ 22 (2003) (“To exercise [the right to self-representation], a defendant must voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to counsel and make an unequivocal and timely request to proceed pro se.”) ().
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
He argues the court applied the wrong standard for competency when denying that request, erroneously applying a “higher standard that Arizona has never adopted.” ¶7 “A defendant has a constitutionally protected right to be represented by counsel or to proceed without counsel if she so chooses.” (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) and Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24).
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Weaver 418 P.3d 468 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. De Nistor , , 412, , 242 (1985).
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Aaron Brian Gunches 377 P.3d 993 Ariz. 2016
In support, -13, -43 (1985) (including “the reasons for the defendant’s request” among factors trial court should consider in ruling on untimely request to waive counsel during trial).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
V. Competency: Self-Representation ¶23 “A defendant has a constitutionally protected right to be represented by counsel or to proceed without counsel if [he] so chooses.” (1985; Ariz. Const. Art. 2, § 24.
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
VI, XIV; Ariz. Const. art 2, § 24; Faretta, 422 U.S. at 818-19
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975)
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
Lashauna Coleman v. Hon. Johnsen/state Ex Rel. State 330 P.3d 952 Ariz. 2014
at 90 ¶ 14, 91 ¶ 20 (“As with the right of self- representation at trial, the right of self-representation on appeal is neither self-executing nor absolute,” and “is not without limits or qualifications.”); (noting that right to self-representation at trial “cannot .
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morgan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 806; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24).
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
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 228 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Scottsdale Memorial Health Systems, Inc. v. Maricopa County 228 P.3d 117 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
in insuring the integrity of the judicial process” and in a “right to a fair trial before an unbiased [fact finder]”); , (in criminal case, government has a “right to a fair trial conducted in a judicious, orderly fashion”) (citation omitted).
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
State v. Boggs 185 P.3d 111 Ariz. 2008
First, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to proceed pro per at the penalty phase.4 (stating that a trial court maintains discretion to deny an untimely motion for self- representation).
State v. Spraggins 742 N.W.2d 1 Minn. Ct. App. 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
State v. Wassenaar 161 P.3d 608 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 28 Further, a defendant’s right to proceed without counsel must be balanced against the need that trial be “conducted in a judicious, orderly fashion[.]” , (quoting United States v. Dujanovic, 486 F.2d 182, 186 (9th Cir.1973)).
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
State v. Lámar 72 P.3d 831 Ariz. 2003
2525, 2541 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975)
State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
State v. Lee 959 P.2d 799 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Djerf 959 P.2d 1274 Ariz. 1998
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Whalen 961 P.2d 1051 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); , , but only so long as the defendant “is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.” McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 173 , 104 S.Ct.
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
If timely, the request ordinarily should be granted, , provided it is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
State v. Thompson 950 P.2d 1176 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997