Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Warren

Court of Appeals of Oregon

November 29, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHAWN PHILLIP WARREN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted April 26, 2016.

         Beaverton Municipal Court M8081911, UC7772401, UC7772411 Les Rink, Judge.

          Kyle Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Rolf C. Moan, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Judge, and Shor r, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         In this consolidated case, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for resisting arrest, driving under the influence of intoxicants, and failure to carry or present a license. He raises four assignments of error on appeal. In his first assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that he waived his right to counsel. In his second, third, and fourth assignments, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing, in the judgment in Case Number UC7772401 (the DUII conviction), a $15 license suspension fee, a $255 DUII conviction fee, and a $50 "Warrant Fee."

         Held: The record shows that defendant affirmatively and intentionally waived his right to [289 Or.App. 78] counsel and chose to proceed pro se. However, as the state properly concedes, the court erred in imposing the license suspension fee, DUII conviction fee, and warrant fee for the first time in the judgment.

         In Case Number UC7772401, portions of judgment requiring defendant to pay $15 license suspension fee, $255 DUII conviction fee, and $50 warrant fee reversed; otherwise affirmed. In Case Numbers UC7772411 and M8081911, affirmed.

         [289 Or.App. 79] EGAN, J.

         In this consolidated case, defendant appeals judgments of conviction for resisting arrest, ORS 162.315, driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII), ORS 813.010, and failure to carry or present a license, ORS 807.570. He raises four assignments of error on appeal. In his first assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that he waived his right to counsel. In his second, third, and fourth assignments, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing, in the judgment in Case Number UC7772401 (the DUII conviction), a $15 license suspension fee, a $255 DUII conviction fee, and a $50 "Warrant Fee." As explained below, we reject defendant's first assignment and affirm his convictions. However, we reverse the portions of the DUII judgment imposing the license suspension, conviction, and warrant fees.

         Because they are central to our analysis, we recount the relevant procedural facts in some detail. Defendant, who had initially been pulled over for failing to display a license plate on his vehicle, was charged with DUII, failure to carry or present a license, and resisting arrest. At a hearing on January 24, 2014, at defendant's request, the court appointed counsel to represent defendant:

"THE COURT: At this juncture, would you like the help of a lawyer, facing all that you face?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: Good choice. Do you need the Public Defender? That's a lawyer.
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
"THE COURT: That means, 'Judge, I don't have the means to go out and hire a lawyer'-
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: -J need the Public Defender.' Good. That's going to be a fellow by the name of Jared Justice."

         At the next hearing on the case, in February 2014, defendant appeared with counsel, who requested and received a continuance. Then, in March 2014, defendant asked the [289 Or.App. 80] court to remove Justice as his attorney; he also requested time to hire another attorney:

"THE DEFENDANT: I would like to relieve him of his duty. I believe he is totally incompetent to defend me and represent me.
"THE COURT: Well, it's your choice whether you have an attorney or not.
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: Did you want to hire your own attorney, or act as your own attorney?
"THE DEFENDANT: I would like to look into getting proper counsel. Yes, sir. So, at this time I would like one more reset so I could be able to do so. I know there's been one, to deal with this attorney, and I've dealt with this attorney, and have found him incompetent so-
" [THE ATTORNEY]: We never met.
"THE DEFENDANT: Oh, I did email you a questionnaire, sir, which you did not answer correctly.
"THE COURT: Okay. *** It's your right to have an attorney if you want one, or not have one, or to hire your own attorney. But, if I understand what you're asking, you want it rescheduled for you to have some time to locate an attorney of your choosing-
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
"THE COURT: -and then hire ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.