State v. Akers

A defendant’s request to waive counsel must be clear and unequivocal. State v. Groff, 306 Or App 40, 45, 472 P3d 812 (2020).

Defendant was convicted of multiple charges, including felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of a restricted weapon, and unlawful possession of heroin and methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court erred in rulings related to his legal representation by (1) failing to conduct a full inquiry into the defendant’s request for self-representation, (2) denying his mid-trial request to represent himself, (3) failing to appoint new counsel when his attorney refused to question him, (4) denying his request for a continuance to prepare his testimony, and (5) failing to give a jury instruction regarding his narrative testimony. The State argued that the defendant never made a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the representation issues. A defendant’s request to waive counsel must be clear and unequivocal. State v. Groff, 306 Or App 40, 45, 472 P3d 812 (2020). The Court found Defendant’s statements were ambiguous and not a clear request for self-representation because they were intertwined with his dissatisfaction with appointed counsel. The Court concluded even if Defendant’s request was clear, the court had discretion to deny mid-trial self-representation, and there was no plain error in failing to appoint new counsel or issue a specific jury instruction. The Court held the trial court did not err in its rulings. AFFIRMED.