Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEVENTINO R. CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2010-11-17
Citations: 238 Or. App. 745
Docket Number: 08P50756; A140132
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEVENTINO R. CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Ortega, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 238
Pages: 745–746

Head Matter:
Submitted October 1,
reversed and remanded November 17, 2010
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEVENTINO R. CERVANTES, Defendant-Appellant.
Polk County Circuit Court
08P50756; A140132
243 P3d 822
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Irene B. Taylor, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
John R. Kroger, Attorney General, Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General, and Inge D. Wells, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Landau, Presiding Judge, and Ortega, Judge, and Sercombe, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant was charged with contempt for violating a Family Abuse Prevention Act restraining order. The trial court permitted defendant to represent himself, but it did so without first determining whether defendant's waiver of his right to counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. During the trial, the court limited defendant's cross-examination of witnesses because defendant made statements to the witnesses and did not ask them questions. Defendant was convicted and now appeals, assigning error to the court's decision to permit him to represent himself and to the court's imposition of limits on his cross-examination of witnesses. The state concedes that the court erred in permitting defendant to waive his right to counsel without first determining whether the waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent and that the error requires reversal. We agree and accept the state's concession. See State v. Meyrick, 313 Or 125, 132-33, 831 P2d 666 (1992). Because the error requires reversal, we need not address defendant's other contention.
Reversed and remanded.