Cited by

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

22 citing documents.

Gibson v. Theut 438 P.3d 666 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
at 330, ¶ 11 , ; see also State v. Torres , , 342, ¶ 6, ; Zarabia v. Bradshaw , , 3, ; State v. DeLuna , , 500-01
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 of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo 390 P.3d 783 Ariz. 2017
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
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
Summer P. v. Shirley M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Rustin Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 12, (holding summary denial of defendant’s request to change counsel is not structural error).
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 good cause).
State v. Dorsey 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 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 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
-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. 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
¶ 6, Zarabia v. Bradshaw, 185 Ariz. 1, 3, (holding that Yuma County’s system of random appointment of private attorneys to represent indigent clients offend
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
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