Legal Opinion
State v. Torres
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided August 28, 2003No. 1CA-CR 02-0278, 1CA-CR 02-0279PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANKFORD, J.
¶ 1 This appeal requires us to decide whether a trial court may — and indeed must — conduct an inquiry and decide an indigent criminal defendant’s motion to substitute appointed counsel. We hold that a court must decide such a motion after adequately inquiring into the grounds for it, and that failure to do so is reversible error that requires a new trial.
¶ 2 Defendant Victor Torres appealed from two cases, and we consolidated the two appeals. 1 His appeal first asserts that the superior court’s failure to consider his motion to substitute appointed counsel violated his…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. TorresArizona Supreme Court · 2004
- State of Arizona v. Jose Alejandro Acuna ValenzuelaArizona Supreme Court · 2018