STATE v. LINDQUIST (2017)

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of second-degree disorderly conduct. ORS 166.025. She raises three assignments of error on appeal. We write only to address defendant's first assignment of error, in which she contends that the trial court erred in allowing her to proceed pro se.¹ Specifically, defendant argues that the trial court failed to ensure that she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to counsel. See State v. Langley, 351 Or. 652, 665, 273 P.3d 901 (2012) (a defendant may elect to waive his or her right to counsel and proceed pro se, but, under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, that waiver must be knowing and intentional); State v. Guerrero, 277 Or. App. 837, 845, 373 P.3d 1127 (2016) (“Waiver of the right to counsel must be voluntarily and intelligently made.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). The state agrees with defendant that the record is insufficient to establish that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived her right to counsel. Accordingly, the state concedes that the trial court erred by allowing defendant to proceed pro se, and that the case must, therefore, be reversed and remanded for a new trial. We agree, and accept the state's concession.

Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of our disposition of defendant's first assignment of error, we need not address her remaining assignments.

PER CURIAM