State v. Abbott

In the absence of a Meyrick colloquy, a trial court’s acceptance of a defendant’s waiver of counsel is proper if, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant “substantially appreciates the material risks of self-representation in [their] case.” State v. Jackson, 172 Or App 414, 423 (2001).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for various crimes. Defendant argued her waiver of the right to counsel was not done knowingly and intelligently because the trial court did not engage in a colloquy and the record does not satisfy the requirements pursuant to State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125 (1992). The State conceded that the trial court did not engage in any colloquy, but contended that an inference can be made from the record that Defendant understood the risks of self-representation. In the absence of a Meyrick colloquy, a trial court’s acceptance of a defendant’s waiver of counsel is proper if, when considering the totality of the circumstances, the record reflects that the defendant “substantially appreciates the material risks of self-representation in [their] case.” State v. Jackson, 172 Or App 414, 423 (2001). Because the only mention of any risk of proceeding pro se happened briefly during the arraignment, which occurred nine months prior to the waiver, the Court found that the record was insufficient to support a conclusion that this waiver was “voluntarily and knowingly made.” The Court determined that there was insufficient evidence that Defendant understood the risks of pro se representation. Reversed and remanded.