Indiana Supreme Court· 1/31/2000

Underwood v. State

Citations

722 N.E.2d 828
2000 Ind. LEXIS 58
2000 WL 116195

How courts have described this case

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

holding that delay from appointed counsel’s request for a continuance, where defendant objected to the request, was attributable to defendant
holding that once counsel is appointed, the defendant must speak to the court through his or her attorney, and trial court was not required to respond to defendant’s pro se speedy trial request
defendant not entitled to discharge under Rule 4(B) where defendant’s counsel moved for continuance during seventy-day period
“To require the trial court to respond to both Defendant and counsel would effectively create a hybrid representation to which Defendant is not entitled.”
once counsel is appointed, defendant speaks to court through counsel
“[O]nce counsel was appointed, Defendant spoke to the court through counsel. The trial court was not required to respond to Defendant’s request [for a speedy trial] or objection [to counsel’s request for a 3 Middleton’s citation to Jackson v. State, 663 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. 1996

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Sullivan, Shepard, Dickson, Boehm, Rucker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.