Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEVIN WIDNEY LYON, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1978-09-18
Citations: 36 Or. App. 255
Docket Number: No. B 77-10163, CA 10556
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEVIN WIDNEY LYON, Appellant.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 36
Pages: 255–257

Head Matter:
Argued July 17,
appeal dismissed September 18, 1978
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. KEVIN WIDNEY LYON, Appellant.
(No. B 77-10163, CA 10556)
584 P2d 345
Timothy M. Bowman, Assistant Public Defender for Coos County, North Bend, argued the cause and filed the brief for the appellant.
William F. Nessly, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for the respondent. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Johnson, Gillette and Roberts, Judges.
JOHNSON, J.

Opinion:
JOHNSON, J.
This is an appeal of a conviction for a traffic infraction, driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540.
After his arrest, defendant was released on his own recognizance and the Public Defender was appointed to represent defendant. Defense counsel concedes that since his appointment he has been unable to locate defendant and has had no contact or consultation with him. It appears that counsel, without the defendant's authorization, entered a plea of not guilty. Defendant did not attend the trial, and was tried, convicted, and sentenced in absentia over defense counsel's objections. Defense counsel has instituted this appeal.
The record indicates that there was no contact at any time between defendant and his appointed counsel. Defense counsel is attempting to prosecute this appeal without the defendant's authorization, and perhaps without his knowledge. This he lacks standing to do, and the appeal is dismissed. Cf. In re Grimes' Estate, 170 Or 204, 131 P2d 448 (1942); State v. Broom, 121 Or 202, 253 P 1042, 1044 (1927).
Appeal dismissed.
Our disposition of this case should not be construed as approval of the procedure followed below.