State v. Middlemiss

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Middlemiss

47 P.3d 528, 181 Or. App. 658, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 855

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMay 29, 2002

Docket9909-49687, 9907-46385; A110658, A110659

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 47 P.3d 528 (State v. Middlemiss) 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. Middlemiss, 47 P.3d 528, 181 Or. App. 658, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 855 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010; resisting arrest, ORS 162.315; and failure to appear, ORS 133.075.¹ Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the trial to proceed without first determining whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The state acknowledges that the courts have held on numerous occasions that waiver of counsel requires that the difficulties of self-representation and the benefits of being represented by an attorney be made known to a defendant before a waiver will be considered knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 831 P2d 666 (1992). The state further concedes that the record in this case does not reveal that defendant was advised about the dangers of self-representation. We find the state’s concession to be well founded and therefore accept it.

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 was convicted of driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 813.010; resisting arrest, ORS 162.315; and failure to appear, ORS 133.075.¹ Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the trial to proceed without first determining whether he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. The state acknowledges that the courts have held on numerous occasions that waiver of counsel requires that the difficulties of self-representation and the benefits of being represented by an attorney be made known to a defendant before a waiver will be considered knowing and voluntary. See, e.g., State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 831 P2d 666 (1992). The state further concedes that the record in this case does not reveal that defendant was advised about the dangers of self-representation. We find the state’s concession to be well founded and therefore accept it.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 P.3d 528, 181 Or. App. 658, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-middlemiss-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack