Arizona Supreme Court· 7/1/2004

State v. Torres

Citations

93 P.3d 1056
208 Ariz. 340
430 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 21
2004 Ariz. LEXIS 74

How courts have described this case

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

holding that court must grant a request for new counsel where a defendant establishes an “irreconcilable conflict with his attorney”
stating that when an indigent defendant requests to represent himself or requests new counsel, he must make sufficiently specific, factually based allegations in support of his request
rejecting assertion that trial court’s failure to inquire was structural error, in part because there was always the possibility that the defendant would not have been entitled to substitution of counsel
discussing the superior court’s duty to inquire about “the basis of a defendant’s request for substitution of counsel”
listing examples of structural error, including “complete denial of counsel [and] a biased trial judge”
explaining courts are generally compelled to appoint new counsel for represented defendants “when there is a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict between a defendant and his appointed counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ryan, Jones, McGregor, Berch, Hurwitz

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

27 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.