State v. Easter, 241 Or. App. 574

Background

Defendant Easter was charged with second-degree theft and interfering with a police officer after stealing a vacuum from Home Depot; he had a long prior criminal history and sought private counsel despite court-appointed counsel Tibbetts.
Trial occurred January 30, 2008; Easter actively participated, including waiving attendance during a separate hearing and arguing about jury handling; he ultimately accepted Tibbetts as a legal advisor for closing arguments.
Easter waived the right to counsel for his closing arguments; the court warned of risks of self-representation and allowed Tibbetts to stay as advisor; Easter proceeded to give a self-represented closing argument under ground rules.
Jury found Easter guilty on both counts; the court scheduled sentencing and noted Easter had fired Tibbetts by the time of sentencing.
A series of sentencing continuances were granted at Easter’s request to allow for mental health evaluations and funds to hire private counsel; Tibbetts appeared at intervals with minor involvement.
On May 23, 2008, Easter appeared without Tibbetts, requested counsel at sentencing (denied), and moved for another continuance to address mental health; the court proceeded to sentence Easter to six months on theft and five days concurrent on the other count.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the waiver of counsel at closing arguments knowingly made?	State argues waiver valid under totality of circumstances.	Easter contends the warning did not explain risks, so waiver not knowingly made.	Waiver knowingly made under totality of circumstances.
Did the trial court err in accepting the waiver without adequate risk explanation under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, §11?	State asserts same totality-of-circumstances analysis applies; knowingly proper.	Easter contends lacking proper colloquy and explanation for risks.	The waiver was knowing and intelligent under both constitutions.
Was the denial of counsel at the sentencing hearing an abuse of discretion?	State contends the court acted within discretion given delays and defendant’s prior actions.	Easter argues he needed counsel at sentencing due to complexity and health issues.	No abuse; court properly denied counsel at sentencing.
Did the court violate right to counsel by proceeding to sentencing without defense representation?	State maintains continuances allowed and representative role feasible through prior arrangements.	Easter asserts lack of representation at sentencing violated his rights.	Proceeding to sentencing without counsel did not violate rights given circumstances.
Was the sentencing procedure invalid due to defendant's lack of counsel and continuances?	State argues procedure adhered to discretion and public interest in expediency.	Easter contends multiple delays and lack of counsel tainted sentencing.	Sentencing upheld; no reversible error in procedure or continuance denial.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wyatt, 331 Or. 335 (2000) (preservation exception for unawareness of risks of self-representation)
State v. Cole, 323 Or. 30 (1996) (waiver of counsel reviewed for knowingness under lack of objection)
State v. Meyrick, 313 Or. 125 (1992) (knowingly component requires awareness of right and risks; totality of circumstances)
State v. Jackson, 172 Or. App. 414 (2001) (totality of circumstances approach to waiver)
State v. Reynolds, 224 Or. App. 411 (2008) (prior experience with criminal justice supports knowing waiver)
State v. Hug, 186 Or. App. 569 (2003) (continuance to obtain counsel balancing rights and expedition)
State v. Martinez, 224 Or. App. 588 (2008) (continuance denial not abuse where no good cause shown)
State v. Sparklin, 296 Or. 85 (1983) (critical stage when counsel absence may impair defense)