Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Rickman, 715 P.2d 752.

40 citing documents.

State v. Branch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Branch Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
P 6.1(e), as long as the withdrawal is “unequivocal” and “clear.” ().
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Arlene L. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See State v. 5 ARLENE L. v. DCS, et al. Decision of the Court Rickman, (stating Arizona does not recognize a hybrid right to both self-representation and representation by counsel).
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Youngs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶19 “The right to represent oneself is a constitutional right.” (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 (1975)).
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
(stating "difference lies in the defendant's right to be informed” about right to counsel); , (stating unlike right to attorney, no obligation to tell a defendant there is a right to proceed pro se).
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
at 548 , 944 P.2d at 63 ( , ).
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Anderson 16 P.3d 214 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
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
(courts should “indulge *108 every reasonable presumption” against the waiver of the constitutionally protected right of self-representation).
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Henry 944 P.2d 57 Ariz. 1997
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
State v. Murray 906 P.2d 542 Ariz. 1995
at 260 , 889 P.2d at 618
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Gonzales 892 P.2d 838 Ariz. 1995
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
State v. Cornell 878 P.2d 1352 Ariz. 1994
137 , 121 L.Ed.2d 90 (1992)
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Campbell v. Superior Court 871 P.2d 740 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Montgomery v. Superior Court 870 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
504 n. 1, , 757 n. 1 (1986).
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Andersen 868 P.2d 964 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Although the trial court noted that the defendant did not have a right to hybrid representation, , it nevertheless ruled on the defendant's own motion.
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. Herrera, Jr. 859 P.2d 131 Ariz. 1993
State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. West 845 P.2d 1097 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
Defendant has no right to such “hybrid representation.”
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Martinez 837 P.2d 1172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See Hudson, Sowards, , 687 * (finding need not be made by a jury); , (probation status need only be established by “reasonable evidence”); , (the court must find release status by clear and convincing evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt).
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Cook 821 P.2d 731 Ariz. 1991
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
State v. Rodriguez 735 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1987
See, , (trial judge sentencing defendant commented that “calendar years” means flat time, day-for-day).