State v. Garrett

A waiver to the right to counsel may be valid if “under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant understood the risks of proceeding without counsel--that is, a defendant substantially appreciates the material risk of self-representation of his or her case.” State v. Borba, 290 Or App 787, 417 P3d 430 (2018).

Defendant appealed convictions for Theft in the First Degree and Supplying Contraband.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court's requirement that Defendant represent himself at trial without a knowing and intentional waiver of counsel. On appeal, the State argued that his alleged waiver of his right to counsel did not satisfy either of the required components of a waiver because 1) the trial court never informed him of the risks of self-representation and 2) Defendant did not intentionally waive his right to counsel because he did not engage in misconduct after having been warned by the court that his conduct could result in a loss of that right.  In response, the State argued that through Defendant's repeated requests for counsel, his observation of tasks and duties that defense counsel performs, and the understanding of the primary weakness of his case, Defendant understood the risks of self-representation sufficiently enough to knowingly and intentionally waive counsel. A waiver to the right to counsel may be valid if “under the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant understood the risks of proceeding without counsel--that is, a defendant substantially appreciates the material risk of self-representation of his or her case.” State v. Borba, 290 Or App 787, 417 P3d 430 (2018). The Court held that following one or more acts of misconduct, Defendant was warned that his acts would result in the loss of his right to counsel, and Defendant continued to engage in similar conduct. Therefore, Defendant knowingly waived his right to counsel under Article I, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution. Affirmed.