State v. Nees

Article I, section 11, guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel. However, a defendant may waive that right if they do so knowingly and intentionally. State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 669, 273 P3d 901 (2012).

After being charged with murder constituting domestic violence, Defendant was appointed a total of seven attorneys, all of whom were permitted to withdraw from representation for different reasons. Defendant assigns error to the trial court’s decision to require him to proceed to trial without counsel in violation of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing his attorney to withdraw, requiring him to represent himself at trial three days later, because the trial court did not caution him about the consequences of his misconduct nor ensure his understanding of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation. Article I, section 11, guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel. However, a defendant may waive that right if they do so knowingly and intentionally. State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 669, 273 P3d 901 (2012). The record shows that the trial court thoroughly explained the risks of proceeding pro se and how Defendant’s constitutional rights would be impacted by self-representation and advised him of the benefits of counsel. The court’s clear and unambiguous warning establishes that Defendant made a knowing and intentional waiver of his right to counsel.  Affirmed.