State v. Muniz-Caudillo

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming voluntary absence when defendant received a warning and “was released on his own recognizance, did not appear at the pretrial conference at which the original trial date was set, and failed to keep in contact with trial counsel to ascertain his trial date”
• defendant was found to be voluntarily absent, even without actual notice of trial date, when informed that failure to attend pretrial conference could result in a trial in absentia
• absence voluntary where defendant did not have personal notice of the continued trial dates but failed to maintain contact with counsel or appear at subsequent proceedings despite the superior court admonishing defendant of the consequences of absence
• “The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”
• “The trial court may infer that a defendant’s absence is voluntary if the defendant had personal knowledge of the time of the proceeding, his right to be present, and the warning that the proceeding would take place in his absence if he failed to appear.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).