Legal Opinion

State v. Gross

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 25, 2001No. 970387AC1; A109149PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

In this probation violation proceeding, the trial court advised defendant that he had a right to be represented by an attorney and that one would be appointed to represent him if he could not afford to hire one. The court then asked defendant if he understood the nature of the charges against him. Defendant replied in the affirmative and admitted the charges. The trial court did not advise him of the consequences of self-representation. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to provide that advice. The state concedes the error. We accept the concession. State v.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State v. AltCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1992

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. HasbrouckCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API