Oregon Supreme Court· 3/29/2012

State v. Langley

Citations

273 P.3d 901
351 Or. 652
2012 WL 1038674
2012 Ore. LEXIS 204

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that the trial court erred by forcing the defendant to choose between self-representation and representation by current counsel, where the court had failed to first determine whether the defendant’s complaints about counsel were valid
observing that a defense lawyer’s motion to withdraw cannot, standing alone, “be treated as an implied waiver of a defendant’s right to counsel”
determining that the defen- dant’s request for new counsel coupled with refusal to be represented by current counsel did not constitute a know- ing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of right to counsel
“A defendant may also elect to waive his or her right to counsel and proceed pro se”
“[R]ecalcitrant behavior toward counsel can move beyond noncooperation and become mis- conduct that defeats the ability of counsel to carry out the representation function.”
“A defendant’s conduct may serve as a valid waiver so long as the conduct adequately conveys the defendant’s knowing and intentional choice to proceed in court without counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: De Muniz, Durham, Walters, Haselton, Gillette

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

22 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.