State v. Joao

Hawaii Supreme Court

State v. Joao

606 P.2d 1332, 61 Haw. 571

CourtHawaii Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 27, 1980

DocketNO. 6381

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 606 P.2d 1332 (State v. Joao) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Joao, 606 P.2d 1332, 61 Haw. 571 (haw 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s probation was revoked by the circuit court. He appeals from the order revoking his probation.

The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case and has considered the issues and arguments raised by the parties. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case and upon applicable law, the Court concludes that there is no reversible error.

The defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Neither was he entitled to Miranda warnings before he was questioned by his probation officer regarding his failure to abide by the terms and conditions of his probation. See State v. Fimbres, 108 Ariz. 430, 501 P.2d 14 (1972);State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 554 P.2d 1272 (1976); State v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766, 514 P.2d 1073 (1973); United States v. Delago, 397 F.Supp. 708 (D.N.Y. 1974).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s probation was revoked by the circuit court. He appeals from the order revoking his probation.

The Court has carefully reviewed the record in this case and has considered the issues and arguments raised by the parties. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case and upon applicable law, the Court concludes that there is no reversible error.

The defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. Neither was he entitled to Miranda warnings before he was questioned by his probation officer regarding his failure to abide by the terms and conditions of his probation. See State v. Fimbres, 108 Ariz. 430, 501 P.2d 14 (1972);State v. Magby, 113 Ariz. 345, 554 P.2d 1272 (1976); State v. Johnson, 9 Wash.App. 766, 514 P.2d 1073 (1973); United States v. Delago, 397 F.Supp. 708 (D.N.Y. 1974).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 P.2d 1332, 61 Haw. 571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-joao-haw-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack