Opinion ID: 1358445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: did the trial court err in denying assistance of counsel in arguing a post-judgment motion?

Text: It is well recognized that an accused is entitled to appointed counsel at any crucial stage of the criminal proceeding. State v. Sample, 107 Ariz. 407, 489 P.2d 44 (1971). However, defendant cites no authority for the proposition that a post-conviction motion is a critical stage in a criminal proceeding. No new admissible evidence is offered in a post-conviction motion. Defendant has already exercised his right to appeal with the assistance of counsel. Furthermore, defendant does not contend that any issue was lost or prejudiced by failure to appoint counsel to argue this post-judgment motion. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CAMERON, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER, LOCKWOOD and HOLOHAN, JJ., concur.