Opinion ID: 2649691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver of Presence at Pretrial Proceedings

Text: ¶51 Forde argues that the trial court violated her federal and state constitutional rights to be present at trial by accepting her counsel’s waiver of her presence at almost every pretrial hearing without evidence that these waivers were knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. Because Forde did not raise this issue to the trial court, we review for fundamental error. ¶52 A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to attend pretrial proceedings critical to the outcome of the criminal proceeding whenever the defendant’s presence “would contribute to the fairness of the procedure.” Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745 (1987). But defense counsel can waive this right on the defendant’s behalf and, absent 5 State v. Willits, 96 Ariz. 184, 393 P.2d 274 (1964). 15 STATE V. FORDE Opinion of the Court exceptional circumstances, the waiver is binding. State v. Rose, 231 Ariz. 500, 504 ¶¶ 9–10, 297 P.3d 906, 910 (2013). Forde has not alleged any exceptional circumstances that call into question the validity of her waivers. The trial court did not err by conducting the pretrial proceedings outside Forde’s presence after her attorney waived her presence.