Legal Opinion

State v. McReynolds

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 25, 2002No. 229921391; A111261PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*633LINDER, J.

The issue in this criminal appeal is whether the trial court erred by failing to inquire into the merits of defendant’s request for substitute counsel. We conclude that, on the facts before us, the trial judge had no duty to make such an inquiry. We therefore affirm.

At the end of the first day of defendant’s jury trial on an assault charge, defendant wrote the trial judge a letter complaining in some detail about his attorney’s representation and asking for a “new attorney], and a new trial with a new jury.” Defendant had the letter hand-delivered to the judge in an envelope that…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wayne Dale Schell v. Larry Witek, Warden Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, State of California, 1Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  2. State v. ThompsonOregon Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Carter v. MoberlyOregon Supreme Court · 1972
  5. State v. LangleyOregon Supreme Court · 1993

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. CrainCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  2. State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. LewisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. State v. McReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API