Cited by

The Arizona Supreme Court has stated that self-represented litigants “must not only respect the dignity of the courtroom, but also ‘comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.’” ¶ 15 (2012) (quoting Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 834 n.46 (1975)).

Riley, 248 Ariz. at 169, ¶ 18; -26, ¶ 29 (2012) (“A trial judge is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for change of counsel if the motion fails to allege specific facts suggesting an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication, or if there is no indication that a hearing would elicit additional facts be

See Martin, 102 Ariz. at 146 (court has discretion to refuse to allow a defendant to continue his own defense when he seriously disrupted court proceedings); (court properly exercised discretion by revoking defendant’s pro per status based on his refusal to proceed on scheduled trial date); ¶¶ 15-17 (2012) (court rightly exercised discretion by revoking defendant’s pro per status after his noncompliance with court rules disrupted proceedings); Whalen, 192 Ariz. at 108 (court did not abuse its di

(denying relief to defendant who was “the cause for the delay about which she complains on appeal”); ¶ 15 (2012) (“[A] self-represented defendant must not only respect the dignity of the courtroom, but also comply with relevant rules.”) (cleaned up).

relationship.” 12 STATE v. DANN Decision of the Court ¶44 “The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the 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.” ¶ 19 (2012) (quotation omitted).

¶11 “A trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s self- representation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 8 (2012).

¶¶ 14-15 (2012) (rejecting argument that “serious obstructionist conduct” required to justify revocation of defendant’s self- representation and noting, “[a] defendant who proves himself incapable of abiding by the most basic rules of the court is not entitled to defend himself”) (internal quotation and citation

The court’s “decision to revoke a defendant’s self-representation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” ¶ 8 (2012).

at ¶ 14 (quotation and alterations omitted); –26, ¶ 29 (2012) (“A [court] is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing .

¶172 We review constitutional questions de novo, ¶ 20 (2007), and a trial court’s failure to grant an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 29 (2012).

A defendant has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel, “but only so long as the defendant is able and willing to abide by the rules of procedure and courtroom protocol.” ¶ 8 (2012) ().

¶ 20, 225–26 ¶ 29 (2012) (concluding trial court did not err in denying 55 STATE V. JOHNSON Opinion of the Court motion for change of counsel where defendant alleged that defense counsel had not visited him in more tha

Although a court “must conduct a hearing” when a defendant sets forth “sufficiently specific, factually based allegations” supporting a request for new counsel, a formal hearing is unnecessary to address “generalized complaints.” Id.; –26, ¶ 29 (2012) (“A trial judge is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion for change of counsel if the motion fails to allege specific facts suggesting an irreconcilable conflict or a complete breakdown in communication, or if there is no indicati

See Torres, 208 Ariz. at 345, ¶ 16; ¶ 27 (2012).

–26 ¶ 29, –02 (2012) (finding that trial courts need not hold an evidentiary hearing on motion for new counsel where “there is no indication that a hearing would elicit additional facts beyond those already before the court”); ¶ 9, 220 ¶ 11

–223, ¶¶ 8, 15, –99 (2012)

Cf. State v. Gomez (Gomez II), ¶ 36, (concluding that victim’s screams, in addition to defensive wounds, supported a finding that murder was especially cruel).

¶9 In contrast, P.3d 495 (2012), a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a defendant’s motion for new counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing.

¶ 19, (citations omitted).

¶12 As we recently stated in State v. Gomez, “[t]he Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the 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.” ¶ 19, (quoting Torres, 208 Ariz. at 342 ¶ 6, 93 P.3d at 3 STATE V. HERNANDEZ Opinion of the Court 1058) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert.