State v. Gonzalez

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Gonzalez

88 P.3d 305, 193 Or. App. 83, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 450

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedApril 14, 2004

DocketCF96-0804; A110105

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 P.3d 305 (State v. Gonzalez) 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. Gonzalez, 88 P.3d 305, 193 Or. App. 83, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 450 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for various sex offenses, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider his request for substitute counsel, in determining that his offenses were separate criminal episodes for sentencing purposes, and in declining to dismiss his charges on speedy trial grounds under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, ORS 135.775 to 135.793, and the Oregon and United States constitutions. We reject defendant’s third assignment of error without discussion. The state concedes that the trial court failed to consider defendant’s request for substitute counsel as asserted in his first assignment of error; we accept the concession. Accordingly, without reaching defendant’s second assignment of error, we vacate defendant’s convictions and remand with instructions to inquire into defendant’s pretrial request for substitute counsel. State v. Smith, 190 Or App 576, 580-81, 80 P3d 145 (2003).

Convictions vacated and remanded with instructions to inquire into defendant’s pretrial complaints regarding his attorney, appointing new counsel for the hearing if defendant so requests. If the trial court determines that defendant was entitled to substitute counsel, it shall order a new trial; otherwise it shall reinstate the previous judgment.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for various sex offenses, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to consider his request for substitute counsel, in determining that his offenses were separate criminal episodes for sentencing purposes, and in declining to dismiss his charges on speedy trial grounds under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, ORS 135.775 to 135.793, and the Oregon and United States constitutions. We reject defendant’s third assignment of error without discussion. The state concedes that the trial court failed to consider defendant’s request for substitute counsel as asserted in his first assignment of error; we accept the concession. Accordingly, without reaching defendant’s second assignment of error, we vacate defendant’s convictions and remand with instructions to inquire into defendant’s pretrial request for substitute counsel. State v. Smith, 190 Or App 576, 580-81, 80 P3d 145 (2003).

Convictions vacated and remanded with instructions to inquire into defendant’s pretrial complaints regarding his attorney, appointing new counsel for the hearing if defendant so requests. If the trial court determines that defendant was entitled to substitute counsel, it shall order a new trial; otherwise it shall reinstate the previous judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 P.3d 305, 193 Or. App. 83, 2004 Ore. App. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gonzalez-orctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack