Augsberger v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that where appellant did not make unequivocal request for self-representation, which was a necessary prerequisite for a Faretta examination, trial court was not required to inform appellant of his right to self-representation
• finding that defendant 4 has obligation to specifically request substitute counsel in order to trigger Nelson requirement
• holding that trial court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to continue for purposes of hiring private counsel on eve of trial where defendant had several months to do so and failed to articulate sufficient reasons for his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel
• finding appellant's stated basis for dissatisfaction was obviously founded on what he perceived to be inadequate conferences with his attorney which, without a more specific claim of incompetence, does not require a full Nelson inquiry
• “We have held that a trial court’s failure to conduct a proper Nelson inquiry constitutes reversible error.”
• “[Appellant’s unarticulated belief that counsel was not ‘serving’ him properly was nothing more than an expression of general loss of confidence or trust which, standing alone, does not require withdrawal of counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).