Oregon Appellate Court, September 23, 2020
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Rankin Johnson • October 1, 2020 • no comments
(Created page with " <summary hidden> POST-CONVICTION RELIEF - Summary-judgment procedure HABEAS CORPUS - Medical care </summary> '''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' '''POST-CONVICTION R...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| − | + | APPEALS - Prejudice | |
| − | + | PLEA BARGAINS - Dismissed charges | |
</summary> | </summary> | ||
'''Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA''' | '''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) | [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 }} | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | [https://link.ocdla.org/soll/ | + | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
Latest revision as of 22:59, October 2, 2020
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)
