Legal Opinion

Haas v. Colosi

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided February 28, 2002No. 1 CA-SA 01-0160, 1 CA-SA 01-0163, 1 CA SA-01-0165PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 In these consolidated special actions, the Maricopa County Public Defender seeks relief from the juvenile court’s denials of his motions to withdraw as counsel for three juveniles charged with incorrigibility offenses. The public defender argues that the legislature intended that only indigent juveniles charged with offenses “that may result in detention” are entitled to representation by his office. Assuming that juveniles charged with incorrigibility offenses cannot be detained, the public defender asserts that there is no statutory authority for the juvenile court…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. United States v. RodgersSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  2. Devenir Associates v. City of PhoenixArizona Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Vo v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1992
  4. Carrow Co. v. LusbyArizona Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of DentonArizona Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Bailey v. MyersCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  2. In Re Leopoldo L.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2004
  3. In Re Stephanie N.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  4. City of Chandler v. Arizona Department of TransportationCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  5. Lana A. v. WoodburnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005

2 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