Legal Opinion

State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 13, 2006No. 0110-36994; A119911PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEdmonds, J.

Defendant appeals from a conviction for Assault II. He makes four assignments of error in his brief prepared by counsel. Defendant also makes an assignment of error pro se. After considering the assignments of error, we affirm defendant’s conviction but remand for resentencing.

Defendant first assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for substitution of counsel, arguing that the court erred in requiring him to proceed to trial without appointing substitute counsel to represent him at trial. Defendant made his motion to substitute counsel on the day set for trial. Previously,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. United States v. CronicSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Mickens v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
  4. Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  5. State v. CunninghamOregon Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. BatyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  2. State v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007
  3. Knox v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2011
  4. State v. Cruz-GonzelezCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
  5. State v. ZolotoffCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012

6 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