Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 619 SW2D 931 - State v. Denny

State v. Denny’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2010
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 2010

10 state decisions

601981199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Thummel v. King · State v. Higgins · State v. Yowell · State v. Eaton · United States v. Hart

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Defendant’s constitutional right to counsel is within the discretion of the court. State v. Hamblin, 448 S.W.2d 603, 607 [7] (Mo.1970); State v. Rollie, 585 S.W.2d 78, 85 [7] (Mo.App.1979). The defendant’s disagreement with advice given by the appointed lawyer did not alone entitle him to a change of counsel. State v. Hollins, 512 S.W.2d 835, 838 [2] (Mo.App.1974). Likewise, without justification, a defendant may not arbitrarily discharge his attorney or refuse the attorney’s services and thereafter be heard to complain that he had no proper representation. Evans v. State, 467 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Mo.1971). To warrant substitution of lawyers, the defendant must first demonstrate justifiable dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. But more to the point in the present case, ‘[t]he right to effective assistance of counsel may not be improperly manipulated by an eleventh hour request to obstruct the orderly administration of justice.’ United States v. Hart, 557 F.2d 162, 163 [1, 2] (8th Cir.1977). After careful and lengthy questioning of defendant and his appointed counsel, the trial court declared, and we believe properly so, the lawyer to be ‘competent’ and that nothing presented ‘indicates to me that he would not have your best interests at heart in representing you effectively and competently.’ As seen, each tenuous reason advanced by defendant for having his appointed lawyer withdraw from or be relieved in the case, was forsaken when the fallacy of each advanced reason became se”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.