State v. Lyon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Lyon

584 P.2d 345, 36 Or. App. 255, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 1840

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedSeptember 18, 1978

DocketNo. B 77-10163, CA 10556

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 584 P.2d 345 (State v. Lyon) 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. Lyon, 584 P.2d 345, 36 Or. App. 255, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 1840 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

This is an appeal of a conviction for a traffic infraction, driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540.

After his arrest, defendant was released on his own recognizance and the Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant. Defense counsel concedes that since his appointment he has been unable to locate defendant and has had no contact or consultation with him. It appears that counsel, without the defendant’s authorization, entered a plea of not guilty. Defendant did not attend the trial, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced in absentia over defense counsel’s objections.¹ Defense counsel has instituted this appeal.

The record indicates that there was no contact at any time between defendant and his appointed counsel. Defense counsel is attempting to prosecute this appeal without the defendant’s authorization, and perhaps without his knowledge. This he lacks standing to do, and the appeal is dismissed. Cf. In re Grimes’ Estate, 170 Or 204, 131 P2d 448 (1942); State v. Broom, 121 Or 202, 253 P 1042, 1044 (1927).

Appeal dismissed.

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

JOHNSON, J.

This is an appeal of a conviction for a traffic infraction, driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540.

After his arrest, defendant was released on his own recognizance and the Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant. Defense counsel concedes that since his appointment he has been unable to locate defendant and has had no contact or consultation with him. It appears that counsel, without the defendant’s authorization, entered a plea of not guilty. Defendant did not attend the trial, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced in absentia over defense counsel’s objections.¹ Defense counsel has instituted this appeal.

The record indicates that there was no contact at any time between defendant and his appointed counsel. Defense counsel is attempting to prosecute this appeal without the defendant’s authorization, and perhaps without his knowledge. This he lacks standing to do, and the appeal is dismissed. Cf. In re Grimes’ Estate, 170 Or 204, 131 P2d 448 (1942); State v. Broom, 121 Or 202, 253 P 1042, 1044 (1927).

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

584 P.2d 345, 36 Or. App. 255, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 1840, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lyon-orctapp-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack