State v. Larocco

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Larocco

649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 980

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMay 25, 1982

DocketNo. 18267

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 649 P.2d 2 (State v. Larocco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah 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. Larocco, 649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 980 (Utah 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged with the crime of theft, in violation of U.C.A., 76-6-404, and retained counsel to represent him. Following a jury verdict of guilty, defense counsel filed this appeal. Defendant has since filed an affidavit of impecuniosity, claiming that his “financial reserves are completely exhausted at this point.” Both defendant and his counsel assert that defendant qualifies for court-appointed representation. Counsel requests permission to withdraw, which request is hereby granted.

This Court is not equipped, however, to take evidence as to the veracity of defendant’s claim of impecuniosity. The case is therefore remanded to the district court for the purpose of hearing any evidence it deems appropriate to make a determination as to defendant’s ability to retain substitute counsel. In the event defendant is found to be impecunious, as alleged, the district court is directed to appoint counsel for the purpose of appeal.

So ordered.

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

PER CURIAM:

Defendant was charged with the crime of theft, in violation of U.C.A., 76-6-404, and retained counsel to represent him. Following a jury verdict of guilty, defense counsel filed this appeal. Defendant has since filed an affidavit of impecuniosity, claiming that his “financial reserves are completely exhausted at this point.” Both defendant and his counsel assert that defendant qualifies for court-appointed representation. Counsel requests permission to withdraw, which request is hereby granted.

This Court is not equipped, however, to take evidence as to the veracity of defendant’s claim of impecuniosity. The case is therefore remanded to the district court for the purpose of hearing any evidence it deems appropriate to make a determination as to defendant’s ability to retain substitute counsel. In the event defendant is found to be impecunious, as alleged, the district court is directed to appoint counsel for the purpose of appeal.

So ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 P.2d 2, 1982 Utah LEXIS 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-larocco-utah-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack