Cited by

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

112 citing documents.

State v. McLemore 288 P.3d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
-44, ¶ 11 , -60 (2004) (citing Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 , 119 S.Ct.
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. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
State v. Peralta 212 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
we remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Defendant and his trial counsel, Jaime Hindmarch (Hindmarch), “had a completely fractured relationship, meaning a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict.” Id.
State v. Hicks 198 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2009
State v. Hicks 198 P.3d 1200 Ariz. 2009
¶ 6, Zarabia v. Bradshaw, 185 Ariz. 1, 3, (holding that Yuma County’s system of random appointment of private attorneys to represent indigent
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Mikal Omar Rasul Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶6 “The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to representation by counsel.” see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 2527 (1975).
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Jill Irene Paris-Sheldon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
Villalpando v. Reagan 121 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
55 n. 3 ¶ 11, , 145 n. 3 (App.2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part