State v. Busby

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Busby

812 P.2d 14, 107 Or. App. 368, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 813

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 22, 1991

Docket84-08-1789; CA A63295

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 812 P.2d 14 (State v. Busby) 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 v. Busby, 812 P.2d 14, 107 Or. App. 368, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 813 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years imprisonment. He contends that his decision to proceed without counsel was not an informed decision. The state concedes that the record does not show that defendant was advised of the nature of the allegations in the probation revocation hearing, the consequences of a revocation or the consequences and pitfalls of representing himself.

Defendant was entitled under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be represented by counsel. State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 647 P2d 904 (1982). In order to decide whether to waive his right to counsel, he had to be appropriately advised. State v. Boswell, 92 Or App 652, 760 P2d 276 (1988); State v. Verna, 9 Or App 620, 498 P2d 793 (1972). The state concedes that he was not properly advised and we conclude that his waiver of counsel was not valid.

Reversed and remanded for a new hearing.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years imprisonment. He contends that his decision to proceed without counsel was not an informed decision. The state concedes that the record does not show that defendant was advised of the nature of the allegations in the probation revocation hearing, the consequences of a revocation or the consequences and pitfalls of representing himself.

Defendant was entitled under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be represented by counsel. State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 647 P2d 904 (1982). In order to decide whether to waive his right to counsel, he had to be appropriately advised. State v. Boswell, 92 Or App 652, 760 P2d 276 (1988); State v. Verna, 9 Or App 620, 498 P2d 793 (1972). The state concedes that he was not properly advised and we conclude that his waiver of counsel was not valid.

Reversed and remanded for a new hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 P.2d 14, 107 Or. App. 368, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-busby-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack