Case Reviews/Oregon Appellate Court, September 23, 2020

 <summary hidden>
APPEALS - Prejudice
PLEA BARGAINS - Dismissed charges
</summary> 

'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA'''

'''APPEALS - Prejudice'''

Trial counsel's failure to call an expert regarding defendant's future dangerousness was prejudicial. Reversed.

[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163582 Running v. Kelly  306 Or App 589 (September 23, 2020) (Tookey) (Marion County, Guimond)

'''PLEA BARGAINS - Dismissed charges'''

When guilty plea was vacated, no legal mechanism existed to revive charges dismissed pursuant to plea bargain. Reversed.

Defendant was charged with many offenses, including compelling and promoting prostitution, and, pursuant to a plea bargain, pleaded guilty to some, including one count of compelling prostitution. Others were dismissed. In federal habeas court, defendant argued that his guilty plea to compelling prostitution was invalid, because the factual basis, that defendant paid for sex, was not sufficient. The federal court agreed and ordered the plea vacated.
Upon returning to state court, defendant successfully moved to withdraw his pleas, and the state successfully moved to reinstate the dismissed charges. The Court of Appeals held that no authority permitted the trial court to reinstate the dismissed charges. 

[https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A163940 State v. Ritchie  306 Or App 622 (September 23, 2020) (DeHoog) (Washington County, Upton)
{{wl-publish: 2020-10-01 22:59:01 -0700 | Rankinjohnsonpdx@gmail.com:Rankin  Johnson }}