intelligent waiver in Arizona

18 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Andersongreen ariz · 1964 · cited in 3 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1965–1966 2 sentences 1966The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.” State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 131 , 392 P.2d 784, 790 (1964). 1966The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.” State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 131 , 392 P.2d 784, 790 (1964).	2	3
State v. Millergreen arizctapp · 1970 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971 2 sentences 1971In the instant case, the record is clear that defendant was making an intelligent waiver.” State v. Miller, 11 Ariz.App. 457, 458 , 465 P.2d 594, 595 (1970). 1971In the instant case, the record is clear that defendant was making an intelligent waiver.” State v. Miller, 11 Ariz.App. 457, 458 , 465 P.2d 594, 595 (1970).	2	2
State v. O'DELLgreen ariz · 1972 · cited in 2 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1973–1978 2 sentences 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled. 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled.	1	2
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen scotus · 1938 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See, e.g., Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 (“The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”); Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163 (according trial courts “substantial latitude”). ¶18 Even so, we cannot approve the trial court’s judgment in this case.	1	1
Wheat v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1988 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See, e.g., Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464 (“The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.”); Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163 (according trial courts “substantial latitude”). ¶18 Even so, we cannot approve the trial court’s judgment in this case.	1	1
State v. Butrickgreen ariz · 1976 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985See State v. Butrick, 113 Ariz. 563 , 558 P.2d 908 (1976). 1985See State v. Butrick, 113 Ariz. 563 , 558 P.2d 908 (1976).	1	1
State v. Goodyeargreen ariz · 1966 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled. 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled.	1	1
State v. Devaneygreen arizctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1978–1978 2 sentences 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled. 1978The court finds that there was an intelligent waiver.”); State v. O’Dell, 108 Ariz. 53 , 492 P.2d 1160 (1972) (“Then I’ll admit it.”); State v. Goodyear, 100 Ariz. 244 , 413 P.2d 566 (1966) (“The statements will be allowed in evidence.”); State v. Devaney, 18 Ariz.App. 98 , 500 P.2d 629 (1972) (“ . . . the motion will be overruled.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Doss green ariz · 1977 2 sentences 1990State v. Doss, 116 Ariz. 156 , 568 P.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Dungan, 149 Ariz. 357 , 718 P.2d 1010 (App.1985). 1990State v. Doss, 116 Ariz. 156 , 568 P.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Dungan, 149 Ariz. 357 , 718 P.2d 1010 (App.1985).	2	1982–1990
State v. Dungan green arizctapp · 1985 2 sentences 1990State v. Doss, 116 Ariz. 156 , 568 P.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Dungan, 149 Ariz. 357 , 718 P.2d 1010 (App.1985). 1990State v. Doss, 116 Ariz. 156 , 568 P.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Dungan, 149 Ariz. 357 , 718 P.2d 1010 (App.1985).	1	1990–1990
State v. LaGrand green ariz · 1987 2 sentences 1990State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 , 733 P.2d 1066 (1987). 1990State v. LaGrand, 152 Ariz. 483 , 733 P.2d 1066 (1987).	1	1990–1990
State v. Evans green ariz · 1980 2 sentences 1985State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 401 , 610 P.2d 35 (1980). 1985State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 401 , 610 P.2d 35 (1980).	1	1985–1985
Westbrook v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1975Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 , 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966); Sieling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (CA9, 1973). 1975Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 , 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966); Sieling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (CA9, 1973).	1	1975–1975
Gilbert F. Sieling, Sr. v. Frank A. Eyman, Warden, Arizona State Prison green ca9 · 1973 1 sentence 1975Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150 , 86 S.Ct. 1320 , 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966); Sieling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (CA9, 1973).	1	1975–1975
State v. Owen green ariz · 1964 2 sentences 1972The defendant contends and we agree that this finding by the court did not constitute a specific ruling on voluntariness in accordance with the standard set in State v. Costello, 97 Ariz. 220 , 399 P.2d 119 (1965) and State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964). 1972The defendant contends and we agree that this finding by the court did not constitute a specific ruling on voluntariness in accordance with the standard set in State v. Costello, 97 Ariz. 220 , 399 P.2d 119 (1965) and State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964).	1	1972–1972
State v. Costello green ariz · 1965 2 sentences 1972The defendant contends and we agree that this finding by the court did not constitute a specific ruling on voluntariness in accordance with the standard set in State v. Costello, 97 Ariz. 220 , 399 P.2d 119 (1965) and State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964). 1972The defendant contends and we agree that this finding by the court did not constitute a specific ruling on voluntariness in accordance with the standard set in State v. Costello, 97 Ariz. 220 , 399 P.2d 119 (1965) and State v. Owen, 96 Ariz. 274 , 394 P.2d 206 (1964).	1	1972–1972
Leonard v. State neutral ariz · 1966 2 sentences 1967Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47 , 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42 , 415 P.2d 570 (1966). 519 It does not bespeak of an intelligent waiver to employ counsel at an alleged fee of $300 and because of counsel's failure to appear at the hearing to innocently decide that counsel is not necessary or that the money spent is not valuable for the protection of his rights. 1967Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47 , 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42 , 415 P.2d 570 (1966). 519 It does not bespeak of an intelligent waiver to employ counsel at an alleged fee of $300 and because of counsel's failure to appear at the hearing to innocently decide that counsel is not necessary or that the money spent is not valuable for the protection of his rights.	1	1967–1967
White v. Maryland green scotus · 1963 1 sentence 1967The United States Supreme Court, following the rationable of Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 , held in White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 .	1	1967–1967
Hamilton v. Alabama green scotus · 1961 2 sentences 1967The United States Supreme Court, following the rationable of Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 , held in White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 . 1967The United States Supreme Court, following the rationable of Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 , 82 S.Ct. 157 , 7 L.Ed.2d 114 , held in White v. State of Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 .	1	1967–1967
Walston & Co. v. Miller green ariz · 1966 1 sentence 1967Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47 , 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42 , 415 P.2d 570 (1966). *519 It does not bespeak of an intelligent waiver to employ counsel at an alleged fee of $300 and because of counsel's failure to appear at the hearing to innocently decide that counsel is not necessary or that the money spent is not valuable for the protection of his rights.	1	1967–1967
Pina v. State neutral ariz · 1966 1 sentence 1967Pina v. State, 100 Ariz. 47 , 410 P.2d 658 (1966); Leonard v. State, 101 Ariz. 42 , 415 P.2d 570 (1966). *519 It does not bespeak of an intelligent waiver to employ counsel at an alleged fee of $300 and because of counsel's failure to appear at the hearing to innocently decide that counsel is not necessary or that the money spent is not valuable for the protection of his rights.	1	1967–1967
State v. Cuzick green ariz · 1964 2 sentences 1965There has been an intelligent waiver of his rights as recognized in State v. Cuzick, 97 Ariz. 130 , 397 P.2d 629 (1964) and State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 (1964). 1965There has been an intelligent waiver of his rights as recognized in State v. Cuzick, 97 Ariz. 130 , 397 P.2d 629 (1964) and State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 (1964).	1	1965–1965
Gideon v. Wainwright green scotus · 1963 2 sentences 1965In the Anderson case the court states: “ * * * The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. * * » Also see Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed. 799 , where it is stated that the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution providing that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance of counsel for his defense is made obligatory on th 1965In the Anderson case the court states: “ * * The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of the right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. * * *» Also see Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed. 799 , where it is stated that the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution providing that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to assistance of counsel for his defense is made obligatory on th	1	1965–1965

Where else courts name it

CA 179 (1947–2026) LA 87 (1942–2019) IL 85 (1948–2026) GA 48 (1971–2026) OH 41 (1944–2026) AR 36 (1956–2021) TX 33 (1968–2025) CT 32 (1968–2016) IN 30 (1969–2020) MD 28 (1964–2008) NY 28 (1955–2018) AL 21 (1965–2018) PA 20 (1941–2021) WA 19 (1963–2022) FL 19 (1964–2014) AZ 18 (1965–2021) SC 18 (1974–2024) WV 18 (1965–2021) MO 14 (1896–2023) CO 13 (1967–2021) MN 13 (1959–2024) RI 12 (1964–2011) NH 11 (1965–2019) MI 11 (1967–2023) MA 11 (1971–2010) NJ 10 (1945–2026) AK 10 (1980–2023) NC 9 (1964–2022) OR 9 (1966–1983) DC 8 (1959–2010) OK 8 (1939–1979) NM 8 (1971–2020) WI 7 (1968–2003) ND 7 (1965–2025) TN 6 (1951–2024) VA 6 (1979–2023) KS 6 (1949–1982) IA 6 (1966–2022) KY 6 (1981–2022) VT 5 (1960–2016) MS 5 (1988–2019) SD 5 (1943–2006) NV 5 (1970–1984) NE 4 (1976–2019) ID 4 (1967–1986) ME 4 (1980–2014) WY 4 (1984–1992) DE 2 (1985–2015) UT 2 (1990–2001) MT 2 (1963–2013)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check