Legal Opinion

State v. Carreno

Utah Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 2006No. 20050591PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals.

DURRANT, Justice:

INTRODUCTION

¶ 1 The two issues upon which we granted certiorari review in this case are (1) whether the district court erred in placing a $500 limitation on reimbursable expenses for an investigator in Noe Carreno’s first degree felony case, and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in failing to apply the plain error standard in reviewing the expense limitation issue. We reach only the first issue, however, because its resolution is dispositive.

¶2 The court of appeals essentially held that a district court may not consider cost…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  4. Barney v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1985
  5. Roberts v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1984

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Olseth v. LarsonUtah Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. DuranCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2011
  3. State v. BarberCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2009
  4. Pleasant Grove City v. TerryUtah Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State v. O'BANNONCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2012

5 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