Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Moody, 968 P.2d 578.

90 citing documents.

State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Brown Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11 (1998); see U.S. Const. amend.
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Granauro Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Walker Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Trejo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Moton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
A Defendant is not “entitled to counsel of choice, or to a meaningful relationship with his or her attorney.” ¶ 11, see Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1983).
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Dorsey Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“A criminal defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to representation by competent counsel.” ¶ 11
State v. Ross Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Ross 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 v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
State v. Fabio Evelio Gomez 293 P.3d 495 Ariz. 2012
fendants 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. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
State v. Kiles 213 P.3d 174 Ariz. 2009
See State v. Moody (Moody I), -09, ¶¶ 21, 23, -82 (1998) (reversing conviction and sentence when record demonstrated irreconcilable conflict).
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
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Samuel Wayne Swoopes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
¶ 9, (waiver of right to counsel); The trial court ultimately ordered a new trial after finding that a factually unsupported portion of “the prosecutor’s argument and [Judge Meehan’s] subsequent response to the jury note combined to depriv
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
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Robinson v. Hotham 118 P.3d 1129 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Thus, for example, a defendant may be denied counsel of his or her choice if that attorney is not competent, ¶ 11 , has an actual or serious potential conflict of interest, Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159-60 , 108 S.Ct.
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
State v. Cromwell 119 P.3d 448 Ariz. 2005
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1983); ¶ 11
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Moody 94 P.3d 1119 Ariz. 2004
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
State v. Torres 93 P.3d 1056 Ariz. 2004
at 57, ¶ 17, 75 P.3d at 147 ( ¶ 23, ) (emphasis added).
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Daniel Y. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 77 P.3d 55 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
1461 (1938) (“[C]ourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights.” (citation omitted)); ¶ 22 , ( , ).
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
State v. Torres 75 P.3d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (“the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel”) (citation omitted); ¶ 11 , (“A criminal *55 defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to representation by competent counsel.”) (emphasis added).
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
Stewart v. Smith 46 P.3d 1067 Ariz. 2002
See, e.g., State v. Moody, 192 Ariz. 505, ¶ 22, (The waiver of the right to counsel “must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”); (When a defendant waives his right to a jury trial, “the court must always address the defendant personally, pursuant to [Rule] 18.1(b)(1) to ascertain ‘th