Oregon Supreme Ct - Aug. 14, 2014
by: Abassos • August 14, 2014 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *A PCR Petitioner Is Not Both Entitled to Counsel and to File Pro Se Motions </summary> '''A PCR Petitioner Is Not Both Entitled to Counsel and to File Pro S...") |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
"We conclude that nothing in the court's opinion in ''Church'' may be fairly understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel. And nothing in the opinion sanctions the sort of hybrid representation that permits a post-conviction petitioner to be represented by counsel and, at the same time, flood the court with pro se motions and other requests for relief any time the petitioner disagrees with counsel's prosecution of the case. ''Church'' says no more than this: If a post-conviction petitioner's attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3)." | "We conclude that nothing in the court's opinion in ''Church'' may be fairly understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel. And nothing in the opinion sanctions the sort of hybrid representation that permits a post-conviction petitioner to be represented by counsel and, at the same time, flood the court with pro se motions and other requests for relief any time the petitioner disagrees with counsel's prosecution of the case. ''Church'' says no more than this: If a post-conviction petitioner's attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3)." | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061670.pdf Johnson v Premo], 355 Or 866 (2014) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S061670.pdf Johnson v Premo], 355 Or 866 (2014) | ||
| − | {{wl-publish: 2014-08- | + | {{wl-publish: 2014-08-14 12:56:34 -0700 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} |
Latest revision as of 12:56, August 25, 2014
A PCR Petitioner Is Not Both Entitled to Counsel and to File Pro Se Motions
"We conclude that nothing in the court's opinion in Church may be fairly understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel. And nothing in the opinion sanctions the sort of hybrid representation that permits a post-conviction petitioner to be represented by counsel and, at the same time, flood the court with pro se motions and other requests for relief any time the petitioner disagrees with counsel's prosecution of the case. Church says no more than this: If a post-conviction petitioner's attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3)." Johnson v Premo, 355 Or 866 (2014)
