Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Cromwell, 119 P.3d 448.

122 citing documents.

State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Valenzuela Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶15 “A trial court’s decision to deny the request for new counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 27 (2005).
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Evan McCarrick Jerald 548 P.3d 1110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
(concluding that defendant’s sentence was properly enhanced “on 4 STATE v. JERALD Opinion of the Court express findings by the jury that the victim was a child under twelve years of age and that [the defen
State v. Espada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Espada Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶8 “A trial court’s decision to deny the request for new counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 27 (2005).
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Z.L. 536 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
In Re Term of Parental Rights as to Z.L. 536 P.3d 266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
ial so that he could do so, he did not provide specific allegations about why he wanted new counsel, asserting only that his counsel was not “fighting hard enough.” In the criminal context, “[a] single allegation of lost confidence in counsel does not require the appointment of new counsel, and disagreements over defense strategies do not constitute an irreconcilable conflict.” ¶ 29 (2005); see Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 14 (1983) (right to counsel does not guarantee a “meaningful relationshi
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Gutierrez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
at 343, ¶ 9; ¶ 29 (2005) ("The presence of an irreconcilable conflict or a completely fractured relationship between counsel and the accused ordinarily requires the appointment of new counsel.").
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Sanchez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Hudson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
9 ¶ 29 (2005) (“A single allegation of lost confidence in counsel does not require the appointment of new counsel .
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Balli Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Riley Ariz. 2020
A defendant must show more than “personality conflicts or disagreements with counsel over trial strategy.” ¶ 30 (2005).
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Schulte Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-88 ¶¶ 19-37 (2005) (affirming denial of defendant’s request for new counsel); ¶ 8 (2004) (holding that court must grant a request for new counsel where a defendant establishes an “irreconcilable conflict with his attorney”).
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. James Clayton Johnson Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State of Arizona v. Alan Matthew Champagne 447 P.3d 297 Ariz. 2019
State v. Meiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Meiner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Britton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Medina-Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Medina-Martinez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scalph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scalph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Francois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶9 A superior court ruling regarding a request for substitute counsel “will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 27 (2005).
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
Tammy M. v. Department of Child Safety 397 P.3d 1057 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
It is “constitutionally impermissible” to require a party entitled to counsel to choose between self-representation and “representation by a lawyer with whom [s]he had a completely fractured relationship, clearly an ‘irreconcilable conflict.’” Moody, , 968 P.2d at 582 ; , (“irreconcilable conflict” or “completely fractured” attorney-client relationship “ordinarily requires the appointment of new counsel”).
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Wright Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Sales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
See Torres, 208 Ariz. at 343 ¶ 8, 93 P.3d at 1059 (“[G]eneralized complaints about differences in strategy may not require a formal hearing or an evidentiary proceeding.”); ¶ 30, (“To constitute a colorable claim, a defendant’s allegations must go beyond personality conflicts or disagreements with counsel over trial strategy.”).
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Younan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶13 A trial court’s ruling on a request for substitute counsel “will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 27 (2005).