Oregon Appellate Court, April 22, 2020
by: Rankin Johnson • April 27, 2020 • no comments
m |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Ineffective assistance of counsel | |
| + | SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Lawfulness of seizure | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
Petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and sought a Measure 11 escape-clause sentence. Trial counsel offered scant evidence that petitioner had served with distinction, but did not explain the evidence before the court, and failed to offer more evidence that could easily have been discovered. | Petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and sought a Measure 11 escape-clause sentence. Trial counsel offered scant evidence that petitioner had served with distinction, but did not explain the evidence before the court, and failed to offer more evidence that could easily have been discovered. | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164666 Pike v. | + | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/A164666 Pike v. Caine] 303 Or App 624 (April 22, 2020) (Lagesen) (Malheur County, Pratt) |
'''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Lawfulness of seizure''' | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Lawfulness of seizure''' | ||
Latest revision as of 16:00, May 2, 2020
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Ineffective assistance of counsel
Trial counsel was ineffective in failing to develop argument that petitioner's military service was a basis to impose a downward departure sentence. Reversed.
Petitioner pleaded guilty to second-degree assault and sought a Measure 11 escape-clause sentence. Trial counsel offered scant evidence that petitioner had served with distinction, but did not explain the evidence before the court, and failed to offer more evidence that could easily have been discovered.
Pike v. Caine 303 Or App 624 (April 22, 2020) (Lagesen) (Malheur County, Pratt)
SEARCH AND SEIZURE - Lawfulness of seizure
Because car was unlawfully seized before defendant abandoned the contents, defendant was entitled to suppression. Reversed and remanded.
The court also observed that there was no lawful basis to expand the stop into an inquiry regarding drugs.
In light of the court's reasoning the Court of Appeals did not presume that the trial court had made related factual findings.
State v. Sherriff 303 Or App 638 (April 22, 2020) (Lagesen) (Washington County, Garcia)
