Legal Opinion

State v. Alt

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided February 26, 1992No. 89M-1965; CA A70390PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

Defendant waived his right to counsel in a probation revocation hearing and represented himself. The record does not show that the trial court advised him of the consequences of a revocation or of the possible consequences and pitfalls of representing himself. See State v. Busby, 107 Or App 368, 812 P2d 14 (1991). A trial court must make at least a minimum inquiry into whether a defendant understands the consequences of a waiver of counsel before allowing him to proceed without counsel. State v. Boswell, 92 Or App 652, 760 P2d 276 (1988). The state concedes that defendant was not advised and…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. BoswellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988
  2. State v. BusbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. State v. BusbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. GrossCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API