State v. Torres

11 P.3d 268, 170 Or. App. 150, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1654
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedSeptember 27, 2000
DocketC960994CR; CA A105046
StatusPublished

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 P.3d 268, 170 Or. App. 150, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-torres-orctapp-2000.