Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Levato, 924 P.2d 445.

50 citing documents.

State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. George Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
¶13 “The right to be present at trial is protected both by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by article II, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.” see also United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985) (The right to presence is rooted largely in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, or, when a defendant is not confronting witnesses or evidence, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendm
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras 557 P.3d 345 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
We otherwise review the trial court’s decision to try Contreras in absentia for an abuse of discretion, considering her absence “in light of the whole record,” (quoting United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 527 (1985)).
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rowan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
A defendant’s “right to be present at trial is protected both by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by article II, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.” (citation omitted).
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Jones Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
A defendant’s “right to be present at trial is protected both by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by article II, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.”
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
7 STATE v. DRESSIG Decision of the Court ¶19 A defendant’s “right to be present at trial is protected both by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by article II, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.”
State v. Rea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Rea Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
(“[C]riminal defendants, under all but exceptional circumstances, are entitled as a matter of constitutional right to be physically present for the return of jury verdicts.”).
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Yellowhair Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Collins Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
This right is protected under the Sixth Amendment and Article 2, Section 24, of the Arizona Constitution, as well as the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Kirby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
VI; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 24
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dickenson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bradley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Medina Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Bruce Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶8 Although she may argue with his strategy, a defendant may be bound by her counsel’s “trial strategy, misconduct and mistakes of counsel so long as counsel’s assistance at trial was not reduced to a ‘mere farce or sham.’” n.3, n.3 (1996) ( ).
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina 306 P.3d 48 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State of Arizona v. John Vincent Fitzgerald 303 P.3d 519 Ariz. 2013
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Whitley 85 P.3d 116 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
State v. Jones 4 P.3d 345 Ariz. 2000
¶ 51 Although a defendant has the right to be present at trial, his right extends only to those situations in which his ‘“presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.’ ” , (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105-06 , 54 S.Ct.
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State v. Smith 4 P.3d 388 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
(counsel alone makes tactical decisions about conduct of trial); , (decisions on trial tactics rest with counsel).
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Guytan 968 P.2d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
State v. Garcia-Contreras 953 P.2d 536 Ariz. 1998
An accused’s “right to be present at trial is protected both by the Sixth Amendment to the federal constitution as incorporated and applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, and by article II, section 24 of the Arizona Constitution.” , (citation omitted).
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997
State v. Schackart 947 P.2d 315 Ariz. 1997