Legal Opinion

Walraven v. Premo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 6, 2016No. 08C18038; A150453PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORTEGA, R J.

As allowed by ORAP 6.25 (1) (d),1 petitioner asks us to reconsider our December 24, 2014, decision, in which we affirmed without opinion the post-conviction court’s judgment denying relief. His request is made in light of Wade v. Brockamp, 268 Or App 373, 390, 342 P3d 142 (2015), in which we concluded that trial counsel’s failure to challenge the “natural and probable consequences” instruction given to the jury at the petitioner’s trial amounted to constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel. In petitioner’s case here, the post-conviction court denied relief on that same…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Krummacher v. GierloffOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Green v. FrankeOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Montez v. CzerniakOregon Supreme Court · 2014
  5. Lichau v. BaldwinOregon Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Maney v. AngelozziCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  2. State v. WalravenCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016
  3. Garner v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  4. Lizarraga-Regalado v. PremoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. McMillan v. KellyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020

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

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

Powered by the Exa API