State v. Wanta

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting a defendant’s “own motion before the circuit court while he was represented by counsel” because there is “no constitutional right to concurrent self-representation and representation by counsel”
• defendant's requests for new counsel insufficient when unsupported by evidence of attorney incompetence, complete breakdown in communication, or conflict of interest
• \competence to stand trial in a criminal proceeding [is] a fundamental right requiring due process protections\
• \[T]he [trial] court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by deciding not to consider [the defendant]^ pro se objection because he was represented in the proceedings by counsel.\
• not every disagreement results in an irreconcilable conflict

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).