309 Or. App. 593 - State v. Muhammad

                                593

      Submitted January 26, reversed and remanded March 3, 2021


                  STATE OF OREGON,
                   Plaintiff-Respondent,
                             v.
                 TARIQ MUHAMMAD,
                  Defendant-Appellant.
             Washington County Circuit Court
                   D153656M; A170003

482 P3d 221



   Andrew Erwin, Judge.
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
   PER CURIAM
   Reversed and remanded.
594                                      State v. Muhammad

         PER CURIAM
         This is defendant’s second appeal in this criminal case. In defendant’s previous appeal, we reversed and
remanded for a new trial due to the trial court’s erroneous denial of defendant’s right to proceed pro se. State v.
Muhammad,

289 Or App 816, 817-18

412 P3d 273

 (2018).
On remand, the court found that defendant would disrupt
the trial process if permitted to represent himself. Next,
the court found that a new trial was unnecessary because
defendant had already been tried and convicted while represented by counsel. Then, the court reentered the judgment
of conviction. Defendant appeals that judgment.
         In this appeal, defendant makes six assignments of
error. The first four involve the trial court’s denial of defendant’s request to proceed pro se and the court’s subsequent
reentry of a judgment of conviction. The state correctly concedes that, under the circumstances of this case, the court
erred by reentering the judgment of conviction rather than
granting defendant a new trial. See State v. Martineau,

300 Or App 784, 787

455 P3d 1020

 (2019) (concluding that
a trial court’s error in denying a defendant’s request for
self-representation requires reversal and remand for a new
trial, rather than for a limited remand permitting a new
assessment of the reasons for the denial). We reverse and
remand for that reason, a disposition that obviates the need
to address most of defendant’s other assignments of error.
         As the parties have framed this appeal, the only
remaining dispute between the parties is what the trial
court may do on remand if defendant, again, requests to proceed pro se. The state argues that the court can rely on its
previous finding that defendant’s self-representation would
be disruptive and, therefore, the court may require defendant to have counsel based on that finding.
         Defendant replies that we have previously held that
that determination by the trial court must be made anew on
remand if defendant again requests to proceed pro se. See

id.

 We agree with defendant. This means that, if defendant
seeks to proceed without counsel at his new trial on remand,
the court must evaluate that request at the time it is made.
         Reversed and remanded.