- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 10-27-2021
- Case #: A170301
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; James, J.; & Kamins, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his convictions for burglary in the second degree and for unauthorized use of a vehicle. Defendant claimed that the trial court erred by not ruling on his courtroom “request to fire his attorney.” Defendant claimed that the court should have interpreted his outburst as a request to proceed pro se or with substitute representation. The State claimed that the Defendant failed to preserve the issue when it was brought up at sentencing and that the outburst in court was not a genuine request. A trial court must have ample opportunity to address a request made to the court in order to preserve an issue on appeal. The Court agreed with the State, because it was unclear from the record whether the Defendant was just unhappy with the result of the hearing or genuinely requesting new counsel or to proceed pro se. The Court also reasoned that the Defendant never again raised the issue of wanting new counsel or to proceed pro se throughout the subsequent two jury trials. Affirmed.