intelligent and competent waiver in Arizona

2021DAVID JOSEPH DUFFY Opinion of the Court determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Id. ¶16 In the multiple representation context, to “establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348 .

1995Cf. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464-65 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938) (holding that fundamental right to counsel requires trial judge to determine whether defendant has made “an intelligent and competent waiver”).

1974This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ * * * ” Westbrook v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 150 , 86 S.Ct. at 1320 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 430 .

1974This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ * * * ” Westbrook v. Arizona, supra, 384 U.S. at 150 , 86 S.Ct. at 1320 , 16 L.Ed.2d at 430 .

2021DAVID JOSEPH DUFFY Opinion of the Court determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Id. ¶16 In the multiple representation context, to “establish a violation of the Sixth Amendment, a defendant who raised no objection at trial must demonstrate that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348 .

2021Once that predicate is established, a defendant need not establish prejudice, for “unconstitutional multiple representation is never harmless error.” Id. at 349 (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 76 (1942)). ¶17 Trial courts have broad latitude in conducting the requisite inquiry into conflict and waiver.

2018See State v. Doss , 116 Ariz. 156 , 160, 568 P.2d 1054 (1977) (court's "protecting duty" pertains to "whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused"); cf. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 (defendant need not have "skill and experience" of a lawyer).

2018See State v. Doss , 116 Ariz. 156 , 160, 568 P.2d 1054 (1977) (court's "protecting duty" pertains to "whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused"); cf. Faretta , 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 (defendant need not have "skill and experience" of a lawyer).

2018But even assuming the court had a duty to evaluate Weaver's readiness, the court undertook no fact-finding to determine what had changed between Weaver's first and second request or whether it reasonably could have remedied any lack of readiness; for example, by appointing his attorney as "standby counsel." McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 , 184, 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (court may appoint counsel over defendant's objection to explain and enforce courtroom protocol and overcome "routine obstacles"). ¶ 13 We do not doubt Weaver's self-representation would have extended the overal

2018But even assuming the court had a duty to evaluate Weaver's readiness, the court undertook no fact-finding to determine what had changed between Weaver's first and second request or whether it reasonably could have remedied any lack of readiness; for example, by appointing his attorney as "standby counsel." McKaskle v. Wiggins , 465 U.S. 168 , 184, 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (court may appoint counsel over defendant's objection to explain and enforce courtroom protocol and overcome "routine obstacles"). ¶ 13 We do not doubt Weaver's self-representation would have extended the overal

1985Quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), the court stated: “[i]t is of course well settled that a defendant in a criminal trial cannot be deemed to abandon any fundamental constitutional protection unless there is both ‘an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ” 478 F.2d at 214 .

1969As one court has observed, ‘ “the serious and weighty responsibility” of determining whether [the defendant] wants to waive a constitutional right requires that he be brought before the court, advised of that right, and then permitted to make “an intelligent and competent waiver.” ’ Cross v. United States, [ 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 ] 325 F. 2d 629 (D.C.Cir. 1963).

1969As one court has observed, ‘ “the serious and weighty responsibility” of determining whether [the defendant] wants to waive a constitutional right requires that he be brought before the court, advised of that right, and then permitted to make “an intelligent and competent waiver.” ’ Cross v. United States, [ 117 U.S.App.D.C. 56 ] 325 F. 2d 629 (D.C.Cir. 1963).

1968This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ” Upon remand, this Court, at 101 Ariz. 206 , 417 P.2d 530 (1966), directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine, inter alia, the following proposition: “Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.” In Sta

1968This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ” Upon remand, this Court, at 101 Ariz. 206 , 417 P.2d 530 (1966), directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine, inter alia, the following proposition: “Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.” In Sta

1968This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ” Upon remand, this Court, at 101 Ariz. 206 , 417 P.2d 530 (1966), directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine, inter alia, the following proposition: “Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.” In Sta

1968This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.’ ” Upon remand, this Court, at 101 Ariz. 206 , 417 P.2d 530 (1966), directed that the case be remanded to the trial court for the purpose of conducting a hearing to determine, inter alia, the following proposition: “Whether defendant is insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to intelligently and competently waive his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel and conduct his own defense.” In Sta