Legal Opinion

State v. Hicks

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided January 12, 2009No. CV-08-0174-PRPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RYAN, Justice.

¶ 1 We here consider whether the State is vicariously liable when a private attorney appointed to represent an indigent criminal defendant provides negligent representation. We hold that when there is no claim that an indigent defendant’s appointed contract attorney did not have the required skill and experience to handle the case, the State cannot be held liable for the attorney’s subsequent negligence.

I

¶2 The Gila County grand jury indicted Rafael Durnan on four felony counts. Because he had no funds to hire an attorney, a Gila County Superior Court judge appointed…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. Polk County v. DodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. Argersinger v. HamlinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. HardestyArizona Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Harrelson v. DupnikDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2013
  3. Gibson v. TheutCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2019

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

Powered by the Exa API