Cited by

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

122 citing documents.

State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
A defendant’s allegations in support of a motion for new counsel “must go beyond personality conflicts or disagreements with counsel over trial strategy; a defendant must allege facts sufficient to support a belief that an irreconcilable conflict exists warranting the appointment of new counsel in order to avoid the clear prospect of an unfair trial.” –87, ¶ 30 (2005).
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Generally, appointment of new counsel requires “an irreconcilable conflict or a completely fractured relationship between counsel and the accused.” ¶ 29 (2005).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
at 343, ¶ 8; -87, ¶¶ 29-30 (2005).
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶12 “A trial court’s decision to deny the request for new counsel will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 27
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A motion supported only by “generalized complaints about differences in [trial] strategy may not require a formal hearing or an evidentiary proceeding.” Id.; ¶ 30, (“To constitute a colorable claim .
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“ ¶13 -87, ¶ 29, -54 (2005) that 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.
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandez 305 P.3d 378 Ariz. 2013
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
“Conflict that is less than irreconcilable, however, is only one factor for a court to consider in deciding whether to appoint substitute counsel.” ¶ 29
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State of Arizona v. Scott Douglas Nordstrom 280 P.3d 1244 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Nelson 273 P.3d 632 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Cota 272 P.3d 1027 Ariz. 2012
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Lehr 254 P.3d 379 Ariz. 2011
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
State v. Dixon 250 P.3d 1174 Ariz. 2011
-90, ¶¶ 38–45, –57 (2005), and State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327, 353, ¶ 114
State v. Prince 250 P.3d 1145 Ariz. 2011
E.g., Tucker, 215 Ariz. at 310-11 ¶¶ 30-31, 160 P.3d at 189-90; ¶ 42, Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 352-53 ¶¶ 111, 113 & n.19, 111 P.3d at 394-95 & n.19.
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
State v. Villalobos 235 P.3d 227 Ariz. 2010
See State v. McCray, 218 Ariz. 252, 258-59 ¶¶ 25-26 & n.3, -10 & n.3 (2008); Velazquez, 216 Ariz. at 308 ¶¶ 28-29, 166 P.3d at 99; -90 ¶¶ 42-45, -57 (2005); Anderson, 210 Ariz. at 353 ¶ 114 & n.19, 111 P.3d at 395 & n.19.
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
State v. Lynch 234 P.3d 595 Ariz. 2010
¶ 43, (declining to consider alleged errors related to heinousness or depravity because cruelty was established).
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
State v. Hargrave 234 P.3d 569 Ariz. 2010
We review alleged constitutional violations de novo, State v. McGill, 213 Ariz. 147, 159 ¶ 53, and when possible, construe statutes to uphold their constitutionality, ¶ 38
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Garcia 226 P.3d 370 Ariz. 2010
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Moore 213 P.3d 150 Ariz. 2009
State v. Speer 212 P.3d 787 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
State v. Dann 207 P.3d 604 Ariz. 2009
In addition, we do not regard disagreement over defense strategy as an “irreconcilable conflict.” ¶ 29, (“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.”).
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 26 , (affirming trial court’s denial of motion for change of counsel where trial court noted, among other things, “that the quality of counsel currently representing [Defendant] is excellent.”) On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Hind-march effective
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
State v. Martinez 189 P.3d 348 Ariz. 2008
Rejected in State v. Cromwell, 211 Ariz. 181, 188-90, ¶¶ 40-45, -57 (2005).