Skip to main content

Williams v. State

Citations

  • 582 A.2d 803
  • 321 Md. 266
  • 1990 Md. LEXIS 185

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that “[t]he right to reject [the assistance of counsel] and defend one’s self was enunciated in Faretta ”
  • “Allowing a defendant to specify the reasons for his request is an integral part of the Rule and cannot be dismissed as insignificant.”
  • “Allowing a defendant to specify the reasons for his request is an integral part of the Rule and cannot be dismissed as insignificant.”
  • reversing a defendant’s convictions because, after he indicated a desire to discharge his counsel, the circuit court failed to inquire why he wanted to do so
  • “Where the trial judge finds a defendant’s reasons to be meritorious, he must grant the request and, if necessary, give the defendant an opportunity to retain new counsel”
  • where a defendant stated to the court “I want another representative,” the trial court acted erroneously in failing to comply with Md. Rule 4-215(e) and not permitting the defendant to explain why he wanted another appointed attorney

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cole

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

17 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.