236
Submitted August 6; remanded for resentencing, otherwise affirmed
September 1, 2021
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JAMIE PATRICK EDGTTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Multnomah County Circuit Court
17CR55109; A173687
Steffan Alexander, Judge.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender,
Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and E. Nani Apo, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
Cite as
314 Or App 236
(2021) 237
PER CURIAM
Defendant pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution, ORS 167.012, and commercial sexual solicitation, ORS
167.008, and received concurrent sentences totaling 29
months’ imprisonment followed by 36 months of post-prison
supervision. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred
in denying his request at sentencing to proceed pro se. The
state concedes that the error entitles defendant to resentencing. We agree that the trial court erred and accept the
concession.
At sentencing, defendant indicated that he would
like to proceed pro se, and counsel moved to withdraw.
Defendant stated several reasons why he was dissatisfied
with his legal representation. The court stated that it would
give defendant five minutes to talk with his lawyer, and that
it was “going to deny the request to withdraw at this time.”
When court reconvened five minutes later, defense counsel
objected to the denial of his motion to withdraw and denial
of defendant’s request to proceed pro se, and nothing further
was said on the matter.
In State v. Hightower,
(2017), the court observed that although a criminal
defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation,
“when the right is asserted well after trial commences, the
trial court retains discretion to weigh its exercise against
the constitutional obligation to preserve the integrity and
fairness of the proceeding, as well as the court’s interest
in ensuring an orderly and expeditious trial.” However, the
court needs to “make a record that reflects how it exercised
that discretion.”
Considerations include the court’s “obligation to ensure the fairness and integrity of the trial and
its inherent authority to conduct proceedings in an orderly
and expeditious manner.”
. The record in this
case does not reflect whether or how the court exercised
such discretion, and we therefore remand for resentencing.
See generally State v. Hightower,
