7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2025 2 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Arizona v. Robert Hernandezgreen2 sentences2025If the defendant makes specific allegations, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” State v. Hernandez, 232 Ariz. 313, 320, ¶ 31 (2013). ¶17 When a defendant moves to substitute counsel, and the conflict is reconcilable, the court considers the conflict alongside the 4 STATE v. VALENZUELA Decision of the Court LaGrand factors: (1) “whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict;” (2) “the timing of the motion;” (3) “inconvenience to witnesses;” (4) “the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and 2023If the defendant’s allegations are specific, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” State v. Hernandez, 232 Ariz. 313 , 320 ¶ 31 (2013). ¶10 Thus, the trial court inquires first into whether “an irreconcilable conflict or a completely fractured relationship between counsel and the accused” exists. | 1 | 3 |
State of Arizona v. Thomas Michael Rileygreen1 sentence2025If the defendant makes specific allegations, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” State v. Hernandez, 232 Ariz. 313, 320, ¶ 31 (2013). ¶17 When a defendant moves to substitute counsel, and the conflict is reconcilable, the court considers the conflict alongside the 4 STATE v. VALENZUELA Decision of the Court LaGrand factors: (1) “whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict;” (2) “the timing of the motion;” (3) “inconvenience to witnesses;” (4) “the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2016“Likewise, if the defendant makes specific allegations when requesting new counsel, the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” Hernandez, 232 Ariz. at 320 ¶ 31, 305 P.3d at 385 . ¶ 80 If the trial court probes a defendant’s request for substitute counsel, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating either a “total breakdown in communication” or an “irreconcilable conflict with his attorney.” Torres, 208 Ariz. at 343 ¶ 8, 93 P.3d at 1059 . 2016“Likewise, if the defendant makes specific allegations when requesting new counsel, the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” Hernandez, 232 Ariz. at 320 ¶ 31, 305 P.3d at 385 . ¶ 80 If the trial court probes a defendant’s request for substitute counsel, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating either a “total breakdown in communication” or an “irreconcilable conflict with his attorney.” Torres, 208 Ariz. at 343 ¶ 8, 93 P.3d at 1059 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. LaGrand
green
1 sentence2025If the defendant makes specific allegations, “the trial court should elicit specific on-the-record responses to the allegations from defense counsel.” State v. Hernandez, 232 Ariz. 313, 320, ¶ 31 (2013). ¶17 When a defendant moves to substitute counsel, and the conflict is reconcilable, the court considers the conflict alongside the 4 STATE v. VALENZUELA Decision of the Court LaGrand factors: (1) “whether new counsel would be confronted with the same conflict;” (2) “the timing of the motion;” (3) “inconvenience to witnesses;” (4) “the time period already elapsed between the alleged offense and | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cromwell
green
1 sentence2023Cromwell, 211 Ariz. at 186 ¶ 29. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Gary Allen Lott, United States of America v. Johnny Marton Lott, AKA Johnny Martin Lott
green
1 sentence2016“To satisfy this burden, the defendant must present evidence of a ‘severe and pervasive conflict with his attorney or evidence that he had such minimal contact with the attorney that meaningful communication was not possible.’ ” Hernandez, 232 Ariz. at 318 ¶ 15, 305 P.3d at 383 (quoting Lott, 310 F.3d at 1249 ). ¶ 81 Goudeau contends that the trial court’s inquiry into his request for new counsel (a request made at only the October 2010 hearing) was “constitutionally insufficient” in light of the record in this ease. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Turnbull
green
2 sentences2011As this court stated in Turnbull : While the allegations in a petition to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or an information, in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation should be fully and clearly set forth in the petition so that the probationer might be informed, by written notice, as to that which he will be called to defend. 114 Ariz. at 291 , 560 P.2d at 809 . ¶ 8 Broman basically argues he was deprived of notice essential to the preparation of his defense. 2011As this court stated in Turnbull : While the allegations in a petition to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or an information, in all fairness, the allegations as to a violation should be fully and clearly set forth in the petition so that the probationer might be informed, by written notice, as to that which he will be called to defend. 114 Ariz. at 291 , 560 P.2d at 809 . ¶ 8 Broman basically argues he was deprived of notice essential to the preparation of his defense. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Radcliffe v. Hilton Inn
green
2 sentences1981Radcliffe v. Hilton Inn, 119 Ariz. 306 , 580 P.2d 767 (App. 1978). 1981Radcliffe v. Hilton Inn, 119 Ariz. 306 , 580 P.2d 767 (App. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Folk v. City of Phoenix
green
2 sentences1978Donaghey v. Attorney General, Ariz. (2 CA-CIV 2766, filed March 30,1978); Folk v. City of Phoenix, 27 Ariz.App. 146 , 551 P.2d 595 (1976); Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282 , 419 P.2d 66 (1966). 1978Donaghey v. Attorney General, Ariz. (2 CA-CIV 2766, filed March 30,1978); Folk v. City of Phoenix, 27 Ariz.App. 146 , 551 P.2d 595 (1976); Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282 , 419 P.2d 66 (1966). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler
green
2 sentences1978Donaghey v. Attorney General, Ariz. (2 CA-CIV 2766, filed March 30,1978); Folk v. City of Phoenix, 27 Ariz.App. 146 , 551 P.2d 595 (1976); Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282 , 419 P.2d 66 (1966). 1978Donaghey v. Attorney General, Ariz. (2 CA-CIV 2766, filed March 30,1978); Folk v. City of Phoenix, 27 Ariz.App. 146 , 551 P.2d 595 (1976); Lakin Cattle Company v. Engelthaler, 101 Ariz. 282 , 419 P.2d 66 (1966). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Estate of Davis
green
2 sentences1969Plaintiff primarily maintains that Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), should be applied to invalidate A.R.S. § 14-561. 1 In California, this question was decided in the case of In re Davis’ Estate, 136 Cal. 590 , 69 P. 412 (1902). 1969Plaintiff primarily maintains that Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), should be applied to invalidate A.R.S. § 14-561. 1 In California, this question was decided in the case of In re Davis’ Estate, 136 Cal. 590 , 69 P. 412 (1902). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1969Plaintiff primarily maintains that Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), should be applied to invalidate A.R.S. § 14-561. 1 In California, this question was decided in the case of In re Davis’ Estate, 136 Cal. 590 , 69 P. 412 (1902). 1969Plaintiff primarily maintains that Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), should be applied to invalidate A.R.S. § 14-561. 1 In California, this question was decided in the case of In re Davis’ Estate, 136 Cal. 590 , 69 P. 412 (1902). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.