- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 04-06-2022
- Case #: A170736
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Mooney, P.J. for the Court; Pagán, J.; & DeVore, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed convictions of robbery, assault, unlawful use of a weapon, theft, and menacing. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s failure to conduct a colloquy regarding Defendant’s knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and denial of Defendant’s motion to represent himself. The “preferred means of assuring that the defendant understand[s] the risks of self-representation” is a colloquy on the record. State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 133, 831 P2d 666 (1992). A defendant’s request for self-representation may not be summarily denied by a trial court. State v. Miller, 254 Or App 514, 524, 295 P3d 158 (2013). The Court found that the trial court should have conducted a meaningful inquiry into Defendant’s waiver of his right to counsel by engaging in a colloquy with Defendant. The trial court erred in failing to conduct the colloquy and “by denying Defendant’s motion to waive counsel.” The Court held that the error required reversal on all counts. Reversed and remanded.