Legal Opinion

State v. Fredinburg

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided July 10, 2013No. 211001655; A145884PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSercombe, J.

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion, made two days before the start of trial and again on the morning of trial, to substitute counsel and postpone the trial. Defendant further argues that the court erred in denying his motion, made during the trial, to represent himself pro se for the remainder of the proceeding. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying those motions and, accordingly, affirm.

After defendant’s truck was stopped…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. State v. MeyrickOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. United States v. Mendez-SanchezCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. State v. VernaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1972
  5. State v. PfliegerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. OrtegaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
  3. State v. GlasbyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
  4. State v. AshbaughCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  5. State v. HightowerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015

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