State v. Wicks

                                 523

   Submitted January 7; in A172967 and A174031, reversed and remanded
                             February 9, 2022


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                NORMAN DAVID WICKS, JR.,
                    Defendant-Appellant.
                Columbia County Circuit Court
                          19CR65778
                 A172967 (Control), A174031
                             

   Ted E. Grove, Judge. (Judgment entered November 27,
2019)
  Jenefer Stenzel Grant, Judge. (Judgment entered April 23,
2020)
   Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Brett J. Allin, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Lauren P. Robertson, Assistant
Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and
Powers, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  In A172967 and A174031, reversed and remanded.
524                                           State v. Wicks

        PER CURIAM
          Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of
second-degree disorderly conduct, ORS 166.025, as well as
a subsequent judgment revoking his probation in the same
case. He asserts that the trial court erred in allowing him
to represent himself at trial without first ensuring that he
understood the dangers of self-representation. See generally
State v. Meyrick, 

, 

 (1992)
(explaining requirement that defendants must be aware of
risks of self-representation, with an on-the-record colloquy
being the preferred means of ensuring defendants are aware
of such risks). The state concedes the error and agrees that
it entitles defendant to reversal of both the conviction and
the subsequent probation revocation.
         A detailed description of what occurred here would
not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. We agree with
the parties that the record is insufficient to support a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel and therefore accept the state’s concession.
        In A172967 and A174031, reversed and remanded.