State v. Cook
The holding in the court’s own words
We hold the evidence supports appellant’s waiver of his appearance at trial and sentencing.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we work.
Cited by
- State v. Dressig Ariz. Ct. App. 2020
- State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen 326 P.3d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. 2014
- State v. Walker 95 P.3d 555 Ariz. Ct. App. 2004
- State v. Muniz-Caudillo 914 P.2d 1353 Ariz. Ct. App. 1996
- State Ex Rel. Romley v. Superior Court 901 P.2d 1169 Ariz. Ct. App. 1995
- State v. Fettis 664 P.2d 208 Ariz. 1983
- State v. Pyeatt 659 P.2d 1286 Ariz. Ct. App. 1983
- State v. Tapp 653 P.2d 6 Ariz. 1982
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Cook 564 P.2d 97
- State v. Goldsmith 542 P.2d 1098
Opinion text
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION NELSON, Presiding Judge. Pursuant to the mandate of this Court, issued as a result of our initial opinion in this cause dated March 29, 1977, State v. Cook, 115 Ariz. 146 , 564 P.2d 97 (Ct.App. 1977), hearings were held in the Superior Court of Maricopa County on June 9th and 10th, 1977. Supplemental memoranda have been filed with this Court, as well as the transcript of those proceedings, and the matter is now ripe for decision. Although only limited additional facts were adduced at the hearing, the doubt this Court entertained as to the appellant’s voluntary absence from the proceedings subsequent to his arraignment, including both the trial itself and the sentencing, have been removed. It is certain that appellant was notified of the initial trial setting, as indicated in our prior opinion, State v. Cook, supra. It is also now clear that appellant made no effort to maintain contact with counsel subsequent to the arraignment, did not in fact show up at the courthouse on the day originally set for trial, even though the case had actually been set over, and continued to avoid all efforts of counsel to apprise him of the date of the subsequent trial, which proceeded without his presence. We hold the evidence supports appellant’s waiver of his appearance at trial and sentencing. Rule 9.1, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.; State v. Goldsmith, 112 Ariz. 399 , 542 P.2d 1098 (1975). The judgment of conviction and the sentence thereon are affirmed. DONOFRIO and OGG, JJ., concurring.