Legal Opinion

Richardson v. Belleque

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 20, 2016No. 09C20407; A151817PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEgan, J.

This is a post-conviction case in which the court vacated petitioner’s sentence on the basis of inadequate assistance of trial counsel, under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and remanded the case for resentencing. The state1 appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred in determining that counsel was inadequate for failing to consult with or call an expert witness at petitioner’s dangerous-offender sentencing hearing. Petitioner cross-appeals, contending that the post-conviction court erred…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Krummacher v. GierloffOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Montez v. CzerniakOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  4. Lichau v. BaldwinOregon Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Stevens v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 1995

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Heroff v. CourseyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  2. Baranovich v. BrockampWashington County Circuit Court, Oregon · 2016
  3. Richardson v. BellequeOregon Supreme Court · 2017
  4. Richardson v. BellequeDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2020
  5. Richardson v. BellequeOregon Supreme Court · 2017

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API