State v. Phillips
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 2930
Syllabus
Trial court did not err by revoking defendant's right to self-representation where the record demonstrated defendant engaged in a pattern of disruptive tactics that appear to have been intended to delay or derail the trial process. Trial court also did not err by holding second day of trial in defendant's absence despite defendant claiming to be too ill to attend court where the defendant had previously feigned a medical issue to delay prior trial date.
Judges: Dorrian
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1967-03-27· cited 23,069×
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1975-06-30· cited 11,585×
- Delaware v. Van ArsdallSupreme Court· 1986-04-07· cited 7,102×
- Arizona v. FulminanteSupreme Court· 1991-05-20· cited 6,060×
- Illinois v. AllenSupreme Court· 1970-04-06· cited 3,248×
- Rose v. ClarkSupreme Court· 1986-07-02· cited 2,431×
- McKaskle v. WigginsSupreme Court· 1984-01-23· cited 2,288×
- United States v. GagnonSupreme Court· 1985-05-13· cited 1,062×
- Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate DistrictSupreme Court· 2000-01-24· cited 840×
- State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court· 1983-08-24· cited 530×
- State v. GibsonOhio Supreme Court· 1976-03-31· cited 427×
- State v. KeenanOhio Supreme Court· 1998-02-25· cited 329×
- State v. FisherOhio Supreme Court· 2003-06-11· cited 213×
- State v. Wilks (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2018-04-24· cited 127×
- State v. CedenoOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-12-24· cited 3×
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.