State v. Borba

“Article 1, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel and the right to self-representation,” State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412, 416, 393 P.3d 224, 266 (2017); however, “[a] criminal defendant may waive the right to be represented by counsel, but the waiver must be voluntarily or knowingly made.” State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125, 132, 831 P.2d 666, 670 (1992).

Defendant appealed a conviction for attempted murder, first-degree assault, and second-degree assault. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's ruling that he knowingly waived his right to counsel, because he did not do so voluntarily or knowingly. Defendant argued that he was not advised of the dangers of going to trial without counsel. In response, the State argued that the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant knew importance of having an attorney and the danger of self-representation. “Article 1, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel and the right to self-representation,” State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412, 416, 393 P.3d 224, 266 (2017); however, “[a] criminal defendant may waive the right to be represented by counsel, but the waiver must be voluntarily or knowingly made.” State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125, 132, 831 P.2d 666, 670 (1992). The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred in concluding that the Defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel and held that the totality of the circumstances did not demonstrate Defendant understood the risks inherent in self-representation at his jury trial. Reversed and remanded.