State v. Torres

11 P.3d 268, 170 Or. App. 150, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1654
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Torres. Read the opinion of the Court — 182 Or. App. 156
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided September 27, 2000·No. C960994CR; CA A105046·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking his probation, arguing that the trial court erred in requiring him to proceed without counsel at the probation revocation hearing despite his request to speak to an attorney. The state concedes that defendant did not waive his right to counsel and that the trial court erred in revoking defendant’s probation under the circumstances. We accept the state’s concession of error. See generally State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 812 P2d 14 (1991) (defendant is entitled, under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, to counsel at a probation revocation hearing).

Reversed and remanded.

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

State v. Torres, 11 P.3d 268, 170 Or. App. 150, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1654 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

11 P.3d 268 (State v. Torres) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Busby
812 P.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)
State v. Busby
812 P.2d 14 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1991)