State v. Hasbrouck

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hasbrouck

57 P.3d 209, 184 Or. App. 753, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1725

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 6, 2002

Docket219911673; A111619

StatusPublished

This text of 57 P.3d 209 (State v. Hasbrouck) 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. Hasbrouck, 57 P.3d 209, 184 Or. App. 753, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1725 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant and the state have jointly moved for an order reversing the judgment convicting defendant of disorderly conduct and remanding the case for a new trial. We grant the motion.

Defendant waived his right to be represented by counsel during the course of trial. A jury found defendant guilty of the charged offense and a judgment of conviction was entered on August 11, 2000. The state concedes that the trial court accepted defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel and allowed defendant to represent himself for part of the trial without properly advising him of the risks of self-representation. See State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, 831 P2d 666 (1992) (explaining the need for a trial court to ensure that the defendant “understand^] the risks of self-representation”); see also State v. Gross, 175 Or App 476, 477, 28 P3d 1243 (2001). We accept that concession.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant and the state have jointly moved for an order reversing the judgment convicting defendant of disorderly conduct and remanding the case for a new trial. We grant the motion.

Defendant waived his right to be represented by counsel during the course of trial. A jury found defendant guilty of the charged offense and a judgment of conviction was entered on August 11, 2000. The state concedes that the trial court accepted defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel and allowed defendant to represent himself for part of the trial without properly advising him of the risks of self-representation. See State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, 831 P2d 666 (1992) (explaining the need for a trial court to ensure that the defendant “understand^] the risks of self-representation”); see also State v. Gross, 175 Or App 476, 477, 28 P3d 1243 (2001). We accept that concession.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 P.3d 209, 184 Or. App. 753, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hasbrouck-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack