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. Glasby

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 18, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SKYLER IAN GLASBY, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and Submitted April 30, 2018

          Umatilla County Circuit Court CF150679 Lynn W. Hampton, Judge.

          Mary M. Reese, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Joanna L. Jenkins, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Egan, Chief Judge, and Powers, Judge. [*]

         Case Summary: In this criminal case, defendant argues that the trial court violated his right to self-representation under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it denied his request to represent himself during a pretrial hearing. The state asserts that the court properly understood defendant's statements to be requests for new counsel, not an invocation of his right to self-representation. Held: The trial court erred in summarily denying defendant's request for self-representation. When faced with a request for self-representation, the record must include some indication of how the trial court actually weighed the relevant competing interests involved.

         [301 Or.App. 480] POWERS, J.

         In this criminal case, defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of multiple offenses, [1] arguing that the trial court violated his right to self-representation under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution when it denied defendant's request to represent himself during a pretrial hearing. In response, the state argues that the trial court properly understood defendant's statements to be requests for new counsel, not an invocation of his right to self-representation. As explained below, we agree with defendant's position and, accordingly, reverse and remand for a new trial.[2]

         A trial court's ruling on a defendant's request to represent him or herself "is subject to appellate review for an abuse of discretion, in light of all other relevant interests that come into play at the commencement of trial." State v. Hightower, 361 Or. 412, 418, 393 P.3d 224 (2017). "[T]he record must include some indication of how the trial court actually weighed the relevant competing interests involved for an appellate court to be able to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling on a request to waive the right to counsel and proceed pro se." Id. at 421. If, however, "the trial court's decision is predicated on a subsidiary conclusion of law-for example, a legal conclusion about the scope of the right-we review that determination for legal error." State v. Nyquist, 293 Or.App. 502, 503, 427 P.3d 1137 (2018).

         The relevant facts are undisputed. Defendant raised concerns about his defense counsel during a pretrial hearing on October 15, 2015. Defendant expressed frustration with being unable to communicate with his counsel and asked, "Is there any way I can have another representation, [301 Or.App. 481] with all due respect?" After listening to defendant's complaints about the lack of communication from his defense counsel, the court then assured defendant that, as his case came closer to trial, it would likely assume "higher priority." The court asked defendant to give his counsel an opportunity, and to bring the matter to the court's attention if defendant still had concerns.

         On October 28, 2015, during defendant's second pre-trial hearing, defendant once again raised frustrations with his defense counsel. Specifically, defendant complained that his counsel was not filing defendant's requested motions or subpoenaing his requested witnesses. Defendant made a request to be represented by new counsel:

"[DEFENDANT]: And if I can-if I can, what we talked about last time, I've called every day, all due respect to the Counsel, I'm trying to be respectful here, I've called every day, he will not come see me. * * * I'm not saying anything bad about him, maybe he has a big caseload, but I- please can I be represented by a-and I will sign a waiver. I need to-I need to be represented by someone that will come see me and take this, my case, a little more serious. Because every day I-he hasn't told me whether he's going to file my motions or anything."

         In response, the court questioned defendant's counsel regarding the allegations. Defendant's counsel admitted to not having had time to thoroughly explain to defendant his reasons for believing defendant's motions had no merit, but ultimately promised to see defendant soon to discuss his legal opinions. The court accepted defense counsel's promise, but defendant did not.

"[DEFENDANT]: Your Honor, the honest truth is I've seen him once for five minutes, before the court-the pre-trial court date. * * * I call-every single day I call, and I cannot hear from him. He won't tell me anything. At this point, I feel like I need to represent myself because I do not feel comfortable. And this is very important to me, and I would rather represent myself in court, which I know it's going to be harder to do, but I have-at this ...

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.