Legal Opinion

State v. Gaino

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided December 27, 2006No. 020436M; A123310PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, C. J.

Defendant appeals her conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, arguing that the trial court erroneously allowed her to proceed without counsel when she petitioned to extend the duration of her diversion program and simultaneously offered a plea of guilty, without the court first determining whether she intelligently and voluntarily relinquished her right to counsel. In addition, defendant asserts that the court erred in denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her petition to extend the diversion agreement. As explained below, we agree with…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Iowa v. TovarSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. SparklinOregon Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State v. ColeOregon Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State v. ProbstOregon Supreme Court · 2005

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. ErbCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  2. State v. PhillipsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  3. State v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  4. State v. ForrestCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  5. State v. PeckCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2023

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

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

Powered by the Exa API