Skip to main content

Howard v. State

Citations

  • 706 S.E.2d 163
  • 307 Ga. App. 822
  • 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 380
  • 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 86

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that “Sixth Amendment right does not afford the defendant the hybrid right to simultaneously represent himself and be represented by counsel”
  • stating that the only evidence offered by defendant to prove that his case had caused him great anxiety and concern constituted hearsay and therefore was of no probative value, and that he could have mitigated any anxiety and concern by asserting his right to a speedy trial sooner
  • defendant’s pro se motions asserting right to speedy trial were ineffective because they were filed when defendant was represented by counsel
  • “[T]his Court has repeatedly held that a pro se demand for a speedy trial filed while a criminal defendant is represented by counsel was of no legal effect whatsoever.” (punctuation omitted)
  • delay partially caused by counsel’s unavailability is attributable to the defendant
  • “a pro se demand for speedy trial filed while a criminal defendant is represented by counsel [has] no legal effect whatsoever [because] the Sixth Amendment right does not afford the defendant the hybrid right to simultaneously represent himself and be represented by counsel”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Blackwell, Barnes, Dillard

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

20 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.