Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 18, 2005No. C991426CR; CA A110289; SC S51233PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBalmer, J.

This criminal case requires us to examine the scope of a trial court’s obligation when a defendant requests that the court appoint new counsel because the defendant is dissatisfied with his existing appointed counsel. Here, defendant told the court on the day of trial that he was dissatisfied with his appointed counsel and counsel’s preparation of defendant’s case. The trial court listened to defendant’s complaints, but it did not inquire into the basis of the complaints or hold a hearing regarding defendant’s assertions. The court, however, expressed its confidence that defendant’s appointed…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Rompilla v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 2003

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

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Montez v. CzerniakOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  2. State v. JohnsonOregon Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Bogle v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2018
  5. State v. FerraroCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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