State ex rel. Redden v. Breck

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State ex rel. Redden v. Breck

826 P.2d 643, 111 Or. App. 404, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 455

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 12, 1992

Docket139,454; CA A67771

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 826 P.2d 643 (State ex rel. Redden v. Breck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Redden v. Breck, 826 P.2d 643, 111 Or. App. 404, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 455 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the execution of a previously imposed sentence for contempt. In 1987, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support arrearages. He appeared without counsel. He was found to be in contempt and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The sentence was not executed. In 1990, he was again ordered to show why his sentence should not be executed for non-compliance with the support order. He again appeared without counsel. The transcript of the “compliance hearing” shows that the trial court did not advise him of his statutory right to counsel at the beginning of the proceeding. The trial court file contains no waiver of counsel.

In Dept. of Rev. v. Rombough, 295 Or 774, 776, 670 P2d 1031 (1983), the court held that the statutory requirement to inform an alleged contemnor of the right to counsel is mandatory, that it arises if the contemnor appears without counsel and that it must be given at the beginning of the show cause hearing. Former ORS 33.095. The same rules apply in a “compliance hearing.” Van Eck and Van Eck, 95 Or App 13, 16, 767 P2d 464 (1989). Consequently, we reverse the order executing the sentence and remand for a new compliance hearing consistent with the requirements of either ORS 33.055 or ORS 33.065.

Reversed and remanded for new compliance hearing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the execution of a previously imposed sentence for contempt. In 1987, he was ordered to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failure to pay child support arrearages. He appeared without counsel. He was found to be in contempt and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. The sentence was not executed. In 1990, he was again ordered to show why his sentence should not be executed for non-compliance with the support order. He again appeared without counsel. The transcript of the “compliance hearing” shows that the trial court did not advise him of his statutory right to counsel at the beginning of the proceeding. The trial court file contains no waiver of counsel.

In Dept. of Rev. v. Rombough, 295 Or 774, 776, 670 P2d 1031 (1983), the court held that the statutory requirement to inform an alleged contemnor of the right to counsel is mandatory, that it arises if the contemnor appears without counsel and that it must be given at the beginning of the show cause hearing. Former ORS 33.095. The same rules apply in a “compliance hearing.” Van Eck and Van Eck, 95 Or App 13, 16, 767 P2d 464 (1989). Consequently, we reverse the order executing the sentence and remand for a new compliance hearing consistent with the requirements of either ORS 33.055 or ORS 33.065.

Reversed and remanded for new compliance hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

826 P.2d 643, 111 Or. App. 404, 1992 Ore. App. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-redden-v-breck-orctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack