State v. Busby

State v. Busby, 812 P.2d 14 (Or. Ct. App. 1991)

Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon · State Appellate Courts
Decided: May 22, 1991
Docket: No. 84-08-1789 CA A63295
Judges: Richardson, P.J., and Newman and Deits
Citations: 812 P.2d 14107 Or. App. 3681991 Ore. App. LEXIS 813

Cited by 4 3 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

812 P.2d 14 (1991)

STATE of Oregon, Respondent,

Haywood Oliver BUSBY, Appellant.

84-08-1789; CA A63295.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted January 30, 1991. Decided May 22, 1991.

Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Michael C. Livingston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.

Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and NEWMAN and DEITS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years imprisonment. He contends that his decision to proceed without counsel was not an informed decision. The state concedes that the record does not show that defendant was advised of the nature of the allegations in the probation revocation hearing, the consequences of a revocation or the consequences and pitfalls of representing himself.

Defendant was entitled under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be represented by counsel. State ex rel. Russell v. Jones, 293 Or. 312 , 647 P.2d 904 (1982). In order to decide whether to waive his right to counsel, he had to be appropriately advised. State v. Boswell, 92 Or. App. 652 , 760 P.2d 276 (1988); State v. Verna, 9 Or. App. 620 , 498 P.2d 793 (1972). The state concedes that he was not properly advised and we conclude that his waiver of counsel was not valid.

Reversed and remanded for a new hearing.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be represented by counsel at a probation revocation hearing)

State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. JH-O., 196 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Appellate Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Alt825 P.2d 661 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. H.-O.196 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. JH-O.196 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Torres11 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2000)

Most recent

State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. JH-O.196 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)
State ex rel. Juvenile Department v. H.-O.196 P.3d 36 (Or. Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Torres11 P.3d 268 (Or. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Alt825 P.2d 661 (Or. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	State v. Verna, 498 P.2d 793 (Or. Ct. App. 1972)	49
	State ex rel. Russell v. Jones, 647 P.2d 904 (Or. 1982)	32
	State v. Boswell, 760 P.2d 276 (Or. Ct. App. 1988)	7

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list