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. Holland, 711 P.2d 592.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Marinakis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    when such access would not unduly delay the [DUI] investigation and arrest.”
  • State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Glenda Lorraine Rumsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
    (dismissal); Juarez, 161 Ariz. at 81, 775 P.2d at 1145 (suppression); Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 570, 744 P.2d at 671 (suppression).
  • State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Weiss 232 P.3d 1259 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
    discuss the right to counsel as a Sixth Amendment right even at the investigatory stage, 3 here the police
  • State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Forte 214 P.3d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
    See, e.g., Kunzler, 154 Ariz. at 568-70 , 744 P.2d at 669-71 ; , McNutt, 133 Ariz. at 7 , 648 P.2d at 122
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. Rosengren 14 P.3d 303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    (state “may not unreasonably restrict” in-custody suspect’s “right to an attorney”); , (state may not, “without justification, prevent access between a defendant and his lawyer, if available, in person or by telephone, when such access would not unduly delay the D[U]I investigation and arrest”).
  • State v. Pecard 998 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Pecard 998 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Sanders 978 P.2d 133 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    (refusal to allow defendant to call attorney before testing violated Sixth Amendment right to counsel); , (defendant has right to consult with attorney as long as contact does not interfere with the investigation); , (defendant has right to talk to attorney in private); , (even *158 though officer did not give defendant a number at which attorney could call back, right to attorney not violated only because defendant and atto
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Transon 924 P.2d 486 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    McNutt, 133 Ariz. at 10 , 648 P.2d at 125
  • State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
  • State v. Keyonnie 892 P.2d 205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
    Nonetheless, , , the court dismissed both counts with prejudice, ruling that dismissal, and not suppression of the breath test, was the remedy for the violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
  • Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • Martinez v. Superior Court 891 P.2d 934 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    without justification, prevent access between a defendant and his lawyer, if available, in person or by telephone, when such access would not unduly delay the DWI investigation and arrest.”
  • State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Juarez 775 P.2d 1140 Ariz. 1989
    McNutt [v. Superior Court, , ]; [State v.] Holland, , .
  • Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • Municipal Court of Phoenix v. Waldron 754 P.2d 1365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    THIS REMAND IS ORDERED as the “right to counsel in criminal proceedings includes the right to consult in private with an attorney.” [ ] (1985).
  • Gloria v. Pima County Superior Court 748 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Gloria v. Pima County Superior Court 748 P.2d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
  • Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
  • Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
  • Kunzler v. Pima County Superior Court 744 P.2d 669 Ariz. 1987
  • Hiveley v. Superior Court 744 P.2d 673 Ariz. 1987
    At the hearing on the motions, defendant stated that he was confused when police told him that “I was entitled to a lawyer and then he turns around and reads me another deal that said that I’m not entitled to an attorney.” , , was applicable to the instant situation.
  • State v. City Court of Tucson 723 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. City Court of Tucson 723 P.2d 728 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Warner 722 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1986
  • State v. Warner 722 P.2d 291 Ariz. 1986
    Rule 6.1(a), Ariz.R.Crim.P., 17 A.R.S.