Jones v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• forbidding counsel to act as a conduit for pro se filings and insisting that counsel “use professional judgment in reviewing the documents and [ ] submit the client’s arguments only if relevant and only after they have been edited by counsel for review by the Court”
• counsel cannot serve as a mere conduit for pro se documents in an effort to avoid the prohibition against hybrid representation and the displeasure of his client
• “There is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal.”
• “There is no constitutional right to hybrid representation either at trial or on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Rivera
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2013-02-13· cited 23×
• Whelchel v. Bazzle
  D. South Carolina· 2006-12-18· cited 4×
• Dennison v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2006-12-06· cited 4×
• City of Columbia v. Assa'ad-Faltas
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2017-06-21· cited 3×
• State of Iowa v. Howard J. Thompson
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2021-02-05

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Ellis
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-05-27· cited 319×
• Foster v. State
  Supreme Court of South Carolina· 1989-06-09· cited 13×