Legal Opinion

State v. Torres

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 2004No. CR-03-0326-PRPublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

RYAN, Justice.

¶ 1 The question this case presents is whether a trial court’s failure to conduct an inquiry into an indigent defendant’s request to change appointed counsel mandates an automatic reversal of the defendant’s conviction. We conclude that it does not. Instead, we hold that the matter must be remanded for a hearing on the defendant’s request.

I

¶ 2 The State charged Victor Torres with several felonies. Because Torres was indigent, the trial court appointed the Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office to represent him. Two months before Torres’ original trial date, he filed a…

2Cases cited28 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. Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  5. Neder v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1999

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. State of Arizona v. Mark GoudeauArizona Supreme Court · 2016
  2. People v. MunseyColorado Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. People v. KellingColorado Court of Appeals · 2006
  4. State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel HidalgoArizona Supreme Court · 2017
  5. State of Arizona v. James Clayton JohnsonArizona Supreme Court · 2019

32 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