Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2002 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Batemangreen2 sentences2002“While it is beyond question that an accused may waive counsel and represent himself, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine whether there has been an intelligent and competent waiver.” State v. Bateman, 296 S.C. 367, 369 , 373 S.E.2d 470, 471 (1988) (citations omitted). 2002“While it is beyond question that an accused may waive counsel and represent himself, it is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine whether there has been an intelligent and competent waiver.” State v. Bateman, 296 S.C. 367, 369 , 373 S.E.2d 470, 471 (1988) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Salley v. State
green
2 sentences1994Assuming appellant was entitled to appellate counsel before the circuit, we hold the court was not required to make a second specific inquiry to determine whether he made his decision to continue proceeding pro se “with his eyes open.” Cf. Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213 , 410 S.E. (2d) 921 (1991) (where the trial judge has a duty to ensure a defendant makes an intelligent and competent waiver of the right to counsel, but makes no specific inquiry of the defendant, the appellate court will look to the record to discern whether there are facts to show the defendant had sufficient background or wa 1994Assuming appellant was entitled to appellate counsel before the circuit, we hold the court was not required to make a second specific inquiry to determine whether he made his decision to continue proceeding pro se “with his eyes open.” Cf. Salley v. State, 306 S.C. 213 , 410 S.E. (2d) 921 (1991) (where the trial judge has a duty to ensure a defendant makes an intelligent and competent waiver of the right to counsel, but makes no specific inquiry of the defendant, the appellate court will look to the record to discern whether there are facts to show the defendant had sufficient background or wa | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences1988Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L. 1988Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806 , 95 S. Ct. 2525 , 45 L. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Johnson v. Zerbst
red
2 sentences1977Johnson v. Zerhst, 304 U. S. 458 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L. 1977Johnson v. Zerhst, 304 U. S. 458 , 58 S. Ct. 1019 , 82 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.