7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2023 3 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 v. Evansgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Evans, 125 Ariz. 401, 403 (1980) (“In any determination of whether there has been a competent waiver of constitutional rights, the better practice would be for the trial judge to make specific findings, but if the record is adequate[,] the absence of specific findings is not reversible error.”). ¶20 Second, Johnson argues that § 13-4033(C) is unconstitutional because it is a procedural law that usurps this Court’s rulemaking authority. 2022In Glassel, although the defendant’s “condition worsened after the original competency hearing and . . . he had incorporated his new counsel into his conspiracy delusions,” neither fact was “inconsistent with the trial court’s original conclusion that [the defendant], although mentally ill, was nonetheless competent to stand trial.” Id. at 44 ¶ 30; see also Evans, 125 Ariz. at 403–04 (concluding there was a competent waiver of counsel despite defendant having been “diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic”). ¶47 A trial court “may order the defendant to undergo a preliminary examination” to assis | 2 | 2 |
State v. Howlandgreen1 sentence2022See State v. Howland, 134 Ariz. 541, 549 (App. 1982); see also LaCount v. Mroz, 253 Ariz. 49 , 52-54, ¶¶ 8-11 (App. 2022) (although it may have been prudent for the superior court to take the “limited step” of ordering a preliminary examination under Rule 11.2(c) “to assist the court in determining if reasonable grounds exist[ed] to order the defendant’s further examination,” such an order was discretionary). ¶28 In short, aside from defense counsel stating she was “not sure where [Rowan was] at mentally right now,” Rowan’s suicide attempt and treatment was the only information in the record c | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jack Apontegreen1 sentence1980See U. S. v. Aponte, supra. At the hearing in which appellant was found competent to stand trial, he was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martingreen2 sentences1974Otherwise the constitutional right to defend oneself if he intelligently and competently chooses would be illusory.” State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142, 145 , 426 P.2d 639, 642 (1967). 1974Otherwise the constitutional right to defend oneself if he intelligently and competently chooses would be illusory.” State v. Martin, 102 Ariz. 142, 145 , 426 P.2d 639, 642 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1974In the same breath, however, once it is determined that a competent waiver has been made it is not within the province of the trial judge to thrust counsel upon the defendant. * * * “* * * While it is right that the court should indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver, see State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 , this in no way implies that it should refuse to consider the defendant’s request altogether. 1974In the same breath, however, once it is determined that a competent waiver has been made it is not within the province of the trial judge to thrust counsel upon the defendant. * * * “* * * While it is right that the court should indulge in every reasonable presumption against a waiver, see State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 , this in no way implies that it should refuse to consider the defendant’s request altogether. | 2 | 1966–1974 |
State v. Glassel
green
1 sentence2022In Glassel, although the defendant’s “condition worsened after the original competency hearing and . . . he had incorporated his new counsel into his conspiracy delusions,” neither fact was “inconsistent with the trial court’s original conclusion that [the defendant], although mentally ill, was nonetheless competent to stand trial.” Id. at 44 ¶ 30; see also Evans, 125 Ariz. at 403–04 (concluding there was a competent waiver of counsel despite defendant having been “diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic”). ¶47 A trial court “may order the defendant to undergo a preliminary examination” to assis | 1 | 2022–2022 |
John Thomas Benton v. United States
neutral
2 sentences1967Benton v. United States, 352 F.2d 59 (9th Circuit). 1967Benton v. United States, 352 F.2d 59 (9th Circuit). | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1966Although the right to assistance of counsel in certain phases of a criminal prosecution is fundamental to due process of law, State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 , the exercise of that right is subject to the requirements of sound judicial administration. 1966Although the right to assistance of counsel in certain phases of a criminal prosecution is fundamental to due process of law, State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123 , 392 P.2d 784 ; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 , the exercise of that right is subject to the requirements of sound judicial administration. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.