Court Opinion

ID: 9782561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:57:11.342773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:05.679151
License: Public Domain

WOLLHEIM, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the analysis and result of the majority opinion. I write only to emphasize the limited scope of our holding, lest we see a plethora of collateral attacks on the written waivers of counsel used by justice courts throughout Oregon.
Our result in this instance is substantially due to several factors worth repeating. The first factor is the extremely limited record of the circumstances concerning defendant’s waiver at the Florence Justice Court. The second factor is the total lack of evidence concerning defendant’s age, experience and education, and mental capacity presented to the trial court. The final factor concerns the great deference we accord the trial court’s determinations in instances such *426as this. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 443 P2d 621 (1968). Without elaborating on those factors, it is worth observing that it is their combined effect in this instance that leads us to the result we reach.
As the majority recognizes, this case is remarkable. 172 Or App at 419. Likewise, I believe the result here, which is the correct one, is similarly remarkable.