From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Quintero

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 15, 1999
986 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

Nos. 97038212C and 97048245C; CA A102861 (Control) and CA A102862 (Cases Consolidated).

Submitted on record and briefs August 6,

reversed and remanded September 15, 1999.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Malheur County, F. J. Yraguen, Judge.

David E. Groom, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Williams, Deputy Public Defender, filed the brief for appellant.

Hardy Myers, Attorney General, Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General, and Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before De Muniz, Presiding Judge, and Haselton and Wollheim, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.


Defendant appeals from the revocation of his probation, arguing that the record does not support a finding that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The state concedes that the trial court's failure to advise defendant of his right to counsel requires reversal of his convictions. See generally State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125, 831 P.2d 666 (1992). We agree that the record does not show that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel. We therefore accept the state's concession of error.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

State v. Quintero

Oregon Court of Appeals
Sep 15, 1999
986 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

State v. Quintero

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICARDO QUINTERO, Appellant

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Sep 15, 1999

Citations

986 P.2d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 1999)
986 P.2d 665

Citing Cases

State v. McCullough

The state confesses error in that regard, and we determine that concession is well-founded. See State v.…

State v. Jackson

Here, in contrast, we are reviewing a trial court's express determination of the validity of a waiver of…