Legal Opinion

State v. Afeworki

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided August 10, 2015No. 70762-1-IPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1

Dwyer, J.

“ ‘[T]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel, while fundamental, is not a right without limitation. Specifically, it is not a right subject to endless abuse by a defendant.’5,1

¶2 Tomas Afeworki was charged with murder in the first degree. During pretrial proceedings, he experienced significant and ongoing conflict with each of his several attorneys. On the eve of trial, Afeworki repeatedly threatened his attorney, who was permitted to withdraw as a result. Afeworki was, thereafter, required to represent himself pro se. On appeal, Afeworki contends that this deprived him of his right…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. State v. FinchWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. United States v. Ronald J. GoldbergCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
  5. State v. HartzogWashington Supreme Court · 1981

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State of Washington v. Benjamin Eric StutzkeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  2. State Of Washington, V Thomas Saunders LomaxCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  3. State v. AfeworkiWashington Supreme Court · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API