- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 11-29-2017
- Case #: A157253
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed convictions for resisting arrest (ORS 162.315), DUII (ORS 813.010), and failure to carry or present a license (ORS 807.570). Defendant assigned error to the court’s determination that he waived his right to counsel. Defendant argued he did not “intentionally” waive his right to counsel. For a defendant to waive his right to counsel, the defendant must have knowledge of his right to counsel and waiver of that right was intentionally and knowingly made. State v. Langley, 351 Or 652, 663, 273 P3d 901 (2012). The determination that a defendant intentionally relinquished the right to counsel is based the “particular circumstances of each case.” State v. Menefee, 268 Or APP 154, 171, 341 P3d 229 (2014). The Court of Appeals held the record sufficiently demonstrated Defendant waived his right to counsel and intended to proceed pro se because after he fired his court appointed defense attorney and rejected a new appointed attorney, the court informed him of the risks of representing himself but nonetheless, asked the court for more time in order to prepare his case. Defendant further assigned error to the court’s imposition a license suspension fee, DUII conviction fee, and a “Warrant Fee” with the judgments of conviction. The Court reversed the portions of the judgment that imposed the fees because the state conceded to the Defendant’s assignment of error for the fees. The portions of the judgment imposing the suspension, DUII conviction, and warrant fees reversed; otherwise affirmed.