Legal Opinion

State v. Hamilton

Utah Supreme Court

Decided January 28, 1987No. 20646PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of several misdemeanors. 1 He appealed to the district court, which affirmed the convictions. In his appeal before this Court, defendant claims that he was denied his right to trial and appellate counsel. We entertain the appeal of this constitutional issue under U.C.A., 1953, § 78-3-5.

Defendant assails the trial court’s failure to appoint an attorney to represent him or, in the alternative, to obtain defendant’s waiver of right to counsel. He also assigns as error the district court’s failure to appoint counsel on his first appeal. We hold that…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Carnley v. CochranSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Moore v. MichiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  4. City of Bellevue v. AcreyWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. McCardellUtah Supreme Court · 1982

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. BakalovUtah Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. FramptonUtah Supreme Court · 1987
  3. State v. FordCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1990
  4. State v. McDonaldCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1996
  5. State v. BakalovCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API