State v. Miller
Decision Date | 22 August 2007 |
Docket Number | No. A126149.,No. 01CR0698.,01CR0698.,A126149. |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stanley Lee MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jesse Wm. Barton, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant.
Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
Before LANDAU, Presiding Judge, and SCHUMAN, Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge pro tempore.
Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of first-degree sodomy, first-degree rape, second-degree kidnapping, and unlawful use of a weapon. He now appeals, assigning error to (1) the trial court's decision to deny his motion for substitute counsel and instead require him to proceed pro se during the first day of trial; (2) the imposition of consecutive sentences without submitting the issue to a jury; (3) the trial court's instruction to the jury that it could convict by less than a unanimous jury and its entry of judgment on a less than unanimous verdict. We reject each of those contentions and affirm.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Defendant received court-appointed counsel. After 20 months of trial preparation—and two weeks before the scheduled trial date— defendant's first counsel withdrew due to an undisclosed ethical conflict. The trial court appointed a second attorney for defendant and also granted a postponement so that new counsel could prepare for trial. After six months, that attorney also moved to withdraw due to an undisclosed conflict of interest, and the court granted the motion. The court appointed defendant's third attorney, Hendershott, and set a trial date some five months out.
On the first day of trial, the court held voir dire and impaneled the jury. The attorneys gave their opening statements, and the state called its first witness, the victim. At that point, defendant interrupted the proceeding and stated, The following colloquy then occurred:
The court recessed so that defendant and Hendershott could confer in private. The colloquy then resumed.
The trial continued, and the court took testimony for approximately two and one-half hours. The state called five witnesses—the victim, a deputy sheriff who had assisted in the investigation at the scene, the emergency room nurse who had examined the victim, the victim's mother, and the 9-1-1 dispatcher. Defendant cross-examined the victim, the deputy sheriff, and the emergency room nurse. The court then called a recess until the following morning.
The next morning, the court began by asking Hendershott for an affidavit in support of his motion to withdraw and then advised defendant of the consequences of conviction and self-representation. Defendant and Hendershott conferred, and Hendershott told the court that defendant had decided to have Hendershott serve as his counsel, after all. From that point on, Hendershott represented defendant.
The state recalled the victim, whom Hendershott cross-examined. The state then called seven additional witnesses: two other deputy sheriffs who had investigated the scene, taken evidence and interviewed the victim, the hospital physician who had conducted the physical examination of the victim, a sheriff's detective and a deputy sheriff who had collected evidence, and two state forensic scientists. Hendershott cross-examined each witness. On the third day of trial, Hendershott put on defendant's evidence, and the trial concluded. The jury convicted defendant of all charges by a vote of 10 to 2.
Defendant first challenges several decisions that the trial court made in response to his request for substitute couns...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reed, CR0713875; A143659.
...should not work in his favor. The state neglects to note that it is the state's burden to establish a valid waiver. See State v. Miller, 214 Or.App. 494, 504–07, 166 P.3d 591 (2007), on recons., 217 Or.App. 576, 176 P.3d 425, rev. den., 345 Or. 95, 189 P.3d 750 (2008), mod. on recons., 228 ......
-
State v. Reynolds
... ... 418 ... To satisfy the "known right" legal component of the standard discussed in Meyrick, the trial court must determine not only that the defendant is aware of the right to counsel but also that the defendant understands the risks inherent in self-representation. State v. Miller, 214 Or.App. 494, 504, 166 P.3d 591 (2007), adh'd to as modified on recons, 217 Or.App. 576, 176 P.3d 425, rev. den, 345 Or. 95, 189 P.3d 750 (2008) (citing Meyrick, 313 Or. at 132-33, 831 P.2d 666). A defendant need not be aware of all the potential risks in order to be said to appreciate those ... ...
-
City of Milton-Freewater v. Ashley
... ... (Emphasis added.) The certificate of service also stated that she "filed the original of th[e] notice of appeal with the State Court Administrator." (Emphasis added.) ... The circuit court granted the city's motion to dismiss the appeal. The circuit court ... Copco Refrigeration, Inc., 339 Or. 388, 394, 121 P.3d 1133 (2005) (quoting Abraham v. Miller, 52 Or. 8, 11, 95 P. 814 ... 214 Or. App. 533 ... (1908)). Here, defendant signed each copy of the notice of appeal that she printed from the ... ...
- State v. Hagstrom, No. C072014CR; A140120.