A Book from the Library of Defense

Oregon Appellate Court--December 19, 2018

From OCDLA Library of Defense
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Rankin Johnson IV • December 20, 2018 • no comments

Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA

APPEAL AND REVIEW - Motions to correct the judgment

Trial court misunderstood the law in partially denying motion to correct judgment under ORS 138.083. Reversed and remanded.

The Court of Appeals explained that a trial court's ruling in partially granting and partially denying a motion to correct the judgment is reviewable on appeal. And, because the trial court misunderstood the application of the sentencing guidelines, the case was remanded for the court to exercise its discretion anew in ruling on the motion.

State v. Redmond 295 Or App 453 (December 19, 2018) (Lagesen) (Multnomah County, Albrecht)

POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Natural-and-probable-consequences instruction

Post-conviction court erred in finding that failure to object to natural-and-probable-consequences instruction was prejudicial as to all counts; it was only prejudicial as to some. Reversed and remanded.

Petitioner, along with three codefendants, committed a home-invasion robbery. The state argued that defendant was the ringleader and, even if not, defendant was liable as an accomplice. The court gave a natural-and-probable consequences instruction.

The post-conviction court held that counsel's failure to object to the natural-and-probable consequences instruction was ineffective and prejudicial. The post-conviction court also held that, because counsel in an unrelated case had been ineffective in failing to object to the instruction, issue preclusion prevented relitigating that issue in this case.

On post-conviction appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the error was prejudicial as to some counts but not others. The Court of Appeals also held that issue preclusion did not bar litigating whether counsel's omissions in this case had been ineffective.

Edwards v. Taylor 295 Or App 476 (December 19, 2018) (Lagesen) (Umatilla County, McCormick)


Trial court did not err by entering separate convictions for each animal in prosecution for multiple counts of animal neglect. Affirmed.

State v. Setere 295 Or App 509 (December 19, 2018) (Per curiam) (Columbia County, Grove)