State v. Estacio
Decision Date | 13 April 2005 |
Citation | 199 Or. App. 16,110 P.3d 624 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Federico Dejesus ESTACIO, Jr., Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
James N. Varner filed the brief for appellant. Federico Dejesus Estacio, Jr., filed the supplement brief pro se.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before EDMONDS, Presiding Judge, and WOLLHEIM and SCHUMAN, Judges.
Defendant appeals from multiple convictions for robbery, ORS 164.405; and ORS 164.395; and makes numerous assignments of error. We reject defendant's assignments without discussion except for what follows in this opinion. We review for errors of law, ORS 138.220, and remand for a hearing on whether different counsel should have been appointed to represent defendant at trial. State v. Smith, 190 Or.App. 576, 80 P.3d 145 (2003), rev. allowed, 337 Or. 160, 94 P.3d 876 (2004).
The incidents resulting in defendant's arrest and trial occurred on August 29, 2001. After appointment of counsel and arraignment on October 18, 2001, in late February 2002, defendant's trial counsel requested a hearing to determine defendant's ability to aid and assist counsel, and in early March defendant requested an order for substitution of attorney.1 The trial court ultimately found that defendant was able to aid and assist his counsel and denied his motion for substitution of counsel, finding no basis for his request.2
At the hearing on the motion for substitution of counsel, defendant explained that he believed that "[counsel's] not really looking for my best interest and she's not helping me as far as any legal work[.]" In response, the trial court pointed out that, because the evaluation had just been made about whether he was able to aid and assist in his own defense, it After hearing from counsel, the trial court made its decision: Defendant responded:
After a further exchange between the trial court and defendant, defendant explained, "I just feel she ain't looking for my best interest." The court responded that "there is absolutely no basis and no reason you would lead me to believe that."
On March 29, 2002, the trial court heard pretrial motions before selecting a jury and beginning trial. Both the prosecutor and defendant's counsel stated that they were ready for trial. Defense counsel then told the court that defendant wished to address the court before the beginning of argument on the pretrial motions. Defendant stated to the court:
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court asked if counsel had any statement that she wanted to make. She replied, The trial court reviewed the order from that hearing and asked defendant if "anything happened that's different between March 13 and today." Defendant asserted that he was given everything at the last minute and did not have time to consider matters before having to make a decision. Counsel then made an additional statement to the court:
(Emphasis added.)
After some discussion about other matters, the trial court returned to the issue of the Bar complaint:
Based on counsel's prior request, the court then conducted a competency hearing under ORS 161.360 and found that defendant was able to understand the nature of the proceedings, aid and assist counsel, and participate in his own defense. After a recess, the court made its rulings on other pretrial matters and prepared for voir dire. Counsel then spoke up: (Emphasis added.) The trial court asked for any authorities and for evidence of what specifically the Bar complaint entailed. Counsel referred the court generally to the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Rules regarding when representation of the client is in conflict with a lawyer's personal interests. She returned to the possibility that she might be required to disclose confidences or otherwise privileged material in response to the complaint and observed that "[t]his may have a chilling effect on his communication with me throughout the duration of the trial." She concluded, "I certainly, Your Honor, it's not going to affect my performance, that I am ready, willing, and able to try this case, and it won't affect me at all, the fact that he filed a Bar complaint."
The trial court denied the motion to withdraw, incorporating the statements made in its ruling on the substitution of counsel, and adding:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich
... ... at the first trial would provide a basis for denying preclusion where it appears the evidence would have a significant effect on the outcome." State Farm v. Century Home, 275 Or. 97, 108-09, 550 P.2d 1185 (1976) (citing Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 88(7) (Tentative Draft No. 2, 1975)) ... ...
-
State v. Estacio
...Court for reconsideration in light of State v. Smith, 339 Or. 515, 123 P.3d 261 (2005). In our original opinion, State v. Estacio, 199 Or.App. 16, 110 P.3d 624 (2005), we vacated defendant's convictions and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to inquire into the reasons f......