State v. Donghwan Kim

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for various crimes described below, assigning error to the trial court’s acceptance of his waiver of his right to counsel.1 Defendant argues that he did not “knowingly” waive his right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, because the court did not inform him of the material risks of proceeding without an attorney or determine whether he understood those risks. We conclude that the record does not support a finding that, in the totality of the circumstances, defendant understood his right to counsel; therefore,…