State v. Fredinburg, 257 Or. App. 473

Defendant was arrested for DUII after a traffic stop; breath test via Intoxilyzer 8000 showed 0.18% BAC.
Trial initially set for April 28, continued to June 3; a June 2 request to postpone was denied.
On the morning of trial (June 4), defense counsel Bons moved to withdraw and for a continuance, alleging an irretrievable breakdown in the attorney–client relationship; the judge found the affidavit not credible and denied withdrawal and continuance.
The court excluded the defense expert on the Intoxilyzer and denied a motion to dismiss; jury selection and opening occurred and the trial was adjourned to June 8.
Defendant renewed requests (June 7–8) to substitute counsel, continue the trial, and to represent himself pro se; the court denied continuance and refused midtrial self-representation as untimely and potentially disruptive.
Defendant was convicted; on appeal he argued the trial court abused its discretion in denying continuances/substitution of counsel and erred in denying his request to proceed pro se.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance / substitution of counsel	Court: denial proper where motion untimely, not supported by credible factual showing, and appeared a subterfuge to delay trial	Romano/Bons/Defendant: need new counsel and time to prepare after breakdown with Bons	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; requests were untimely and lacked sufficient cause
Denial of midtrial self-representation	Court: Faretta right subject to timing and disruption concerns; midtrial request can be denied if it would unreasonably disrupt proceedings	Defendant: invoked constitutional right to represent himself; record lacked evidence self-representation would be disruptive	Affirmed — even if waiver was knowing, trial court reasonably concluded midtrial self-representation would disrupt and be untimely

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (recognizes constitutional right to self-representation when waiver is voluntary and intelligent)
State v. Martinez, 224 Or. App. 588 (2008) (trial court may deny day-of-trial continuance to obtain new counsel when defendant had prior opportunity and no good cause shown)
State v. Pflieger, 15 Or. App. 383 (1973) (defendant may not change counsel on the morning of trial without substantial cause)
State v. Blanchard, 236 Or. App. 472 (2010) (self-representation waiver must be intelligent, unequivocal, and not disruptive)
Koller v. Schmaing, 254 Or. App. 115 (2012) (denial of self-representation can be an abuse of discretion if record does not support disruption rationale)
State v. Verna, 9 Or. App. 620 (1972) (recognizes defendant’s right to represent himself under state constitution)
State v. Greenough, 8 Or. App. 86 (1972) (choice of counsel must be accommodated unless it would unreasonably disrupt proceedings)
Meyrick v. State, 313 Or. 125 (1992) (record must show waiver of counsel was intentional, knowing, and voluntary)