Saldana-Ramirez v. State
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, C. J.
Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief. ORS 138.530. He asserts that he was denied effective assistance of counsel due to his criminal defense counsel’s purported default in failing to inform him of specific immigration-related consequences that could result from pleading guilty to felony failure to appear. Chaidez v. United States, No 11-820, 2013 WL 610201 (US Feb 20, 2013), forecloses that claim.1 Accordingly, we affirm.
In reviewing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we are bound by the post-conviction court’s factual findings that are supported by…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Padilla v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Chaidez v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2011
- Lyons v. PearceOregon Supreme Court · 1985
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Verduzco v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2015
- Watkins v. AckleyOregon Supreme Court · 2022
- Berg v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013
- Madrigal-Estrella v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- Hardegger v. AmsberryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.