State v. Brooks

"The scope of the right to counsel encompasses those stages of a criminal proceeding 'when [a defendant] must take steps or make a choice which is likely to have a substantial effect on the prosecution against him.'" State v. Miller, 254 Or 244, 249, 458 P2d 1017 (1969). "When a defendant asks to represent himself, the court must determine, on the record, whether his decision is an intelligent and understanding one." Id. at 523 (citing State v. Davis, 110 Or App 358, 360, 822 P2d 736 (1991)).

Defendant appealed a conviction of three counts of Robbery in the First Dgree with a Frearm, one count of Theft in the First Degree with a Firearm, Kidnapping in the Second Degree with a Firearm, and Burglary in the First Degree with a Firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure in denying Defendant’s request for self-representation. On appeal, Defendant maintained that his constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution and his self-representation right under Article 1, Section 11 in the Oregon Constitution were ignored. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s right to counsel had not yet attached at the preliminary hearing, and as such, the State can compel the Defendant to accept representation. Alternatively, the State argued that based on the record, during the preliminary hearing there was never a denial of self-representation, but there was only a deferral, so Defendant's right was not ignored. "The scope of the right to counsel encompasses those stages of a criminal proceeding 'when [a defendant] must take steps or make a choice which is likely to have a substantial effect on the prosecution against him.'" State v. Miller, 254 Or 244, 249, 458 P2d 1017 (1969). "When a defendant asks to represent himself, the court must determine, on the record, whether his decision is an intelligent and understanding one." Id. at 523 (citing State v. Davis, 110 Or App 358, 360, 822 P2d 736 (1991)). The Court found that because of the early stage in the proceedings and trial was not imminent, the trial court could temporarily defer its Miller inquiry, which it properly did. Therefore, the trial court did not err when it deferred the Defendant’s equivocal request for self-representation and as such did not deny Defendant’s self-representation right. Affirmed.

Affirmed.