Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAYWOOD OLIVER BUSBY, Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1991-05-22
Citations: 107 Or. App. 368
Docket Number: 84-08-1789; CA A63295
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAYWOOD OLIVER BUSBY, Appellant.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 107
Pages: 368–369

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted January 30,
reversed and remanded for a new hearing May 22, 1991
STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. HAYWOOD OLIVER BUSBY, Appellant.
(84-08-1789; CA A63295)
812 P2d 14
Sally L. Avera, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Michael C. Livingston, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Newman and Deits, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years imprisonment. He contends that his decision to proceed without counsel was not an informed decision. The state concedes that the record does not show that defendant was advised of the nature of the allegations in the probation revocation hearing, the consequences of a revocation or the consequences and pitfalls of representing himself.
Defendant was entitled under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be represented by counsel. State ex rel Russell v. Jones, 293 Or 312, 647 P2d 904 (1982). In order to decide whether to waive his right to counsel, he had to be appropriately advised. State v. Boswell, 92 Or App 652, 760 P2d 276 (1988); State v. Verna, 9 Or App 620, 498 P2d 793 (1972). The state concedes that he was not properly advised and we conclude that his waiver of counsel was not valid.
Reversed and remanded for a new hearing.