# State v. Jackson

> Court of Appeals of Oregon · February 14, 2001 · 172 Or. App. 414

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782561

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF OREGON, Appellant, v. DAVID ALLEN JACKSON, JR., Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Oregon
- **Decided:** February 14, 2001
- **Citations:** 172 Or. App. 414; 19 P.3d 925; 2001 Ore. App. LEXIS 154
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wollheim
- **Judges:** Haselton, Wollheim, Ceniceros
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782561

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that a prior, uncounseled DUII conviction could not be used to support a later felony DUII charge unless the defendant was made aware of the risks and disadvantages of self-representation
- observing that the Meyrick court’s “no cat- echism” approach “explicitly disclaims such a formalistic approach”

## Opinion text

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 *426 as 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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9782561. Public record. Not legal advice.