Skip to main content

Hill v. State

Citations

  • 773 N.E.2d 336
  • 2002 Ind. App. LEXIS 1331
  • 2002 WL 1880781

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that “[b]ecause Hill was represented by counsel, the trial court was not required to grant Hill’s request to proceed with a speedy trial”
  • holding that defense counsel’s failure to object to a continuance acted to waive defendant’s speedy trial request even though defendant personally objected to the continuance and requested to go to trial on the originally scheduled trial date
  • noting that a pro se defendant's right to control his case is eroded when standby counsel interferes with his right to present his case in his own way
  • noting that a pro se defendant’s right to control his case is eroded when standby counsel interferes with his right to present his case in his own way

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sharpnack, Friedlander, Brook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.