State v. Kinney, 264 Or. App. 612

Defendant appeals two consolidated Multnomah County cases: Case 1 (070733501) for unlawful possession of cocaine and driving while suspended or revoked; Case 2 (100532040) for driving while suspended or revoked.
Incidents: 2007 sleeping in running van during noise investigation; 2010 stop for traffic violation while driving with two passengers; in both, license suspended or revoked.
Issue at trial: whether the jury should determine if the suspended/revoked status constitutes a Class B felony under ORS 811.182(3); the court instructed the jury on that element as a question of law.
Trial court asked whether the felony status was a question of law or fact; defense agreed it was a question of law; the jury was not asked to make findings on the Class B felony status.
Defendant raised four assignments of error including self-representation and contempt sanctions; the court imposed contempt sanctions, which were later found to be in error when double-counted in judgments; the court affirmed most issues and remanded on the contempt issue.
Ultimately, the court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded on the punitive contempt issue for proper resentencing/reimposition of sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the jury should determine if the DWSD convictions were Class B felonies.	Barber requires jury determination of core element.	Deny review; element was law; defendant agreed it was law.	No reversal; invited-error, Barber inapplicable; issue not reviewed.
Whether the trial court correctly denied self-representation before trial.	Davis/Verna allow self-representation to proceed.	Court cannot preempt self-representation for anticipated disruption.	No error; court may deny self-representation to prevent disruption.
Whether the contempt sanctions were properly imposed or improperly doubled in judgments.	Contempt sanctions were valid and properly listed.	Doubling violated ORS 33.096 and extended penalties.	Error; punitive contempt sanctions doubled; remand for proper imposition.
Whether inviting error bars appellate review under Article I, Section 11 and the Sixth Amendment.	Defendant invited the error and cannot complain.	Rights were violated regardless of invitation; reversed.	No reversal under either provision due to invitation.

Barber v. State, 343 Or 525 (2007) (jury-trial right element may require written waiver when tried by court)
State v. Gaynor, 130 Or App 99 (1994) (invited error doctrine guidance in reviewing trial decisions)
State v. McEahern, 126 Or App 201 (1994) (limits on reviewing invited errors)
State v. Engerseth, 255 Or App 765 (2013) (rejected reliance on Barber in similar context)