No. 24-7522

Rachael Lynn Boehme v. Oregon

Lower Court: Oregon
Docketed: 2025-06-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel pro-se-representation sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a trial court commits reversible error by denying a defendant's request to proceed pro se and refusing to replace ineffective court-appointed counsel

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

When trial court would neither agree to relieve defense counsel, even after he took positions that were plainly adverse to his client, nor permit the defendant to proceed pro se, does this constitute reversible error? When court appointed counsel has intentionally failed to act as accused ’s “compulsory process for obtaining and presenting witnesses and evidence in her favor ” and the court has denied substitution of counsel, is she entitled to act in pro se? Does a trial court err by failing to conduct a meaningful colloquy about defendant's request to represent herself in the face of what the state admits was ineffective assistance of counsel, and then by denying defendant's motion to proceed pro se, without conducting a proper inquiry, does this constitute reversible error?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-28
Waiver of State of Oregon of right to respond submitted.
2025-07-28
Waiver of right of respondent State of Oregon to respond filed.
2025-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 30, 2025)

Attorneys

Rachael Boehme
Rachael Lynn Boehme — Petitioner
Rachael Lynn Boehme — Petitioner
State of Oregon
Benjamin Noah GutmanOregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Benjamin Noah GutmanOregon Department of Justice, Respondent