Case Name: WRIGHT, Appellant, v. LIEPE, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1977-09-19
Citations: 30 Or. App. 1041
Docket Number: No. 76-5169, CA 8503
Parties: WRIGHT, Appellant, v. LIEPE, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Tanzer and Richardson, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 30
Pages: 1041–1043

Head Matter:
Submitted on record and briefs August 18,
affirmed September 19,
reconsideration denied October 19, 1977,
petition for review pending
WRIGHT, Appellant, v. LIEPE, Respondent.
(No. 76-5169, CA 8503)
569 P2d 57
Robert J: Wright, Noti, filed the brief pro se for appellant.
Pat Horton, District Attorney, and Brian Barnes, Assistant District Attorney, Eugene, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Tanzer and Richardson, Judges.
PER CURIAM.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this case petitioner, who was charged with a misdemeanor — violation of ORS 9.160 — initiated a writ-of-review proceeding, alleging numerous irregularities in the procedure. The trial judge ruled against him on all points, issuing a detailed written opinion in the course of so doing. There is no merit in any of petitioner's contentions and a detailed opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Such being the case, we would not have issued such opinion had petitioner been represented by counsel, and we see no reason to do so just because he has elected not to be so represented.
Affirmed.
"Except for the right reserved to litigants by ORS 9.320 to prosecute or defend a cause in person, no person shall practice law or represent himself as qualified to practice law unless he is an active member of the Oregon State Bar." ORS 9.160.