State v. Cervantes

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Cervantes

243 P.3d 822, 238 Or. App. 745, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1428

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 17, 2010

Docket08P50756; A140132

StatusPublished

This text of 243 P.3d 822 (State v. Cervantes) 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. Cervantes, 243 P.3d 822, 238 Or. App. 745, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1428 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

*746 PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with contempt for violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. The trial court permitted defendant to represent himself, but it did so without first determining whether defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. During the trial, the court limited defendant’s cross-examination of witnesses because defendant made statements to the witnesses and did not ask them questions. Defendant was convicted and now appeals, assigning error to the court’s decision to permit him to represent himself and to the court’s imposition of limits on his cross-examination of witnesses. The state concedes that the court erred in permitting defendant to waive his right to counsel without first determining whether the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and that the error requires reversal. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 132-33, 831 P2d 666 (1992). Because the error requires reversal, we need not address defendant’s other contention.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*746 PER CURIAM

Defendant was charged with contempt for violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. The trial court permitted defendant to represent himself, but it did so without first determining whether defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. During the trial, the court limited defendant’s cross-examination of witnesses because defendant made statements to the witnesses and did not ask them questions. Defendant was convicted and now appeals, assigning error to the court’s decision to permit him to represent himself and to the court’s imposition of limits on his cross-examination of witnesses. The state concedes that the court erred in permitting defendant to waive his right to counsel without first determining whether the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and that the error requires reversal. We agree and accept the state’s concession. See State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 132-33, 831 P2d 666 (1992). Because the error requires reversal, we need not address defendant’s other contention.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 P.3d 822, 238 Or. App. 745, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 1428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cervantes-orctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack