Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Torres, 93 P.3d 1056.

112 citing documents.

State v. Horton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
DISCUSSION ¶7 The only argument Horton makes on appeal is that the superior court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it denied his request for new counsel without conducting a
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Cooper Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Distinguished State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna Valenzuela 426 P.3d 1176 Ariz. 2018
Acuna argues the trial court had a duty to protect his constitutional rights, ¶ 18 (App. 2003), vacated in part
Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Shirley R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scalph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Scalph Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
However, “when there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel, that defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel has been violated.” ¶ 6 (2004).
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. Torres , , ¶ 11, quoting Arizona v. Fulminante , 499 U.S. 279 , 310, 111 S.Ct.
State v. Shockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Shockey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
2 and appoint new counsel because he had an "irreconcilable conflict" with his court-appointed attorney.
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
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Melissa D. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 15 (2004) (citation omitted).
State v. Boucher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Boucher Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
I. Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel ¶10 Boucher argues the superior court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by denying his request for alternate counsel without conducting a
State v. Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Portillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Porter Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶ 7, (stating that when an indigent defendant requests to represent himself or requests new counsel, he must make sufficiently specific, factually based allegations in support of his request).
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau 372 P.3d 945 Ariz. 2016
A trial court abuses its discretion by summarily denying a motion for change of counsel without inquiring into the “specific factual allegations that raised a colorable claim that [the defendant] had an irreconcilable conflict with his appointed counsel.” ¶ 9
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kegler Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12, (holding summary denial of defendant’s request to change counsel is not structural error).
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Aguilar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
4 STATE v. AGUILAR Decision of the Court defendant is not “entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” ¶ 6 (2004) (internal citation omitted).
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rene Castro v. Hon. Peter J. Hochuli C.C. 343 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
Rene Castro v. Hon. Peter J. Hochuli C.C. 343 P.3d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
(criminal defendant entitled to new counsel if “there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel.”); (attorney permitted to withdraw upon showing of go
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “[A] trial judge has a duty to inquire as to the basis of a defendant’s request for substitution of counsel.” ¶ 7
State v. Bos Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. McGriff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Oscar Castillo Mendoza 321 P.3d 424 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
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
¶19 The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the 9 right to representation by counsel, but “an indigent defendant is not ‘entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.’” ¶ 6, ( ¶ 11, ).
State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012