State v. Miller

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Miller

105 P.3d 944, 197 Or. App. 400, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 87

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 2, 2005

DocketCR0214178; A121187

StatusPublished

This text of 105 P.3d 944 (State v. Miller) 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. Miller, 105 P.3d 944, 197 Or. App. 400, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 87 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for reckless endangerment, ORS 163.195, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to determine that his waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary. The state concedes that the record does not establish that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary. Upon review of the record, we find the state’s concession to be well founded. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

In State v. Myrick, 313 Or 125, 133-34, 831 P2d 666 (1992), the court held that a determination of whether a waiver of right to counsel is knowing and voluntary depends on the extent to which the court has engaged in a colloquy with the defendant concerning the risks of self-representation. This case does not concern the sufficiency of the colloquy; rather, in this case, no colloquy occurred. Such an error requires reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his convictions for reckless endangerment, ORS 163.195, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to determine that his waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary. The state concedes that the record does not establish that defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel was knowing and voluntary. Upon review of the record, we find the state’s concession to be well founded. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

In State v. Myrick, 313 Or 125, 133-34, 831 P2d 666 (1992), the court held that a determination of whether a waiver of right to counsel is knowing and voluntary depends on the extent to which the court has engaged in a colloquy with the defendant concerning the risks of self-representation. This case does not concern the sufficiency of the colloquy; rather, in this case, no colloquy occurred. Such an error requires reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 P.3d 944, 197 Or. App. 400, 2005 Ore. App. LEXIS 87, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-miller-orctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack