State v. Coto

Supreme Court of South Carolina

State v. Coto

374 S.E.2d 181, 296 S.C. 480, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 145

CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina

DecidedNovember 28, 1988

Docket22928

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 374 S.E.2d 181 (State v. Coto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Coto, 374 S.E.2d 181, 296 S.C. 480, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 145 (S.C. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The record does not indicate, and no determination was made, that Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Bateman,_S. C__, 373 S. E. (2d) 470 (1988); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. (2d) 562 (1975); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948).

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

The record does not indicate, and no determination was made, that Appellant’s waiver of counsel was knowing and intelligent. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded for a new trial. State v. Bateman,_S. C__, 373 S. E. (2d) 470 (1988); see also Faretta v. California, 422 U. S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. (2d) 562 (1975); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708, 68 S. Ct. 316, 92 L. Ed. 309 (1948).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 S.E.2d 181, 296 S.C. 480, 1988 S.C. LEXIS 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coto-sc-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack