Williamson v. Schiedler
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtWollheim, J.
Petitioner appeals a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that his trial counsel was inadequate because, at sentencing, counsel failed to object to petitioner’s sentence on the ground that the sentence violated the 200 percent rule. OAR 213-012-0020(2)(b). We review the post-conviction court’s judgment for errors of law and for evidence to support its findings, Smart v. Maass, 148 Or App 431, 434, 939 P2d 1184, rev den, 326 Or 62 (1997), and reverse.
Petitioner was indicted for (1) one count of manufacture of a controlled substance (MCS), ORS 475.992(l)(b);…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- Trujillo v. MaassOregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. BoydOregon Supreme Court · 1975
- Lichau v. BaldwinOregon Supreme Court · 2002
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Norris v. Board of Parole & Post-Prison SupervisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Ramoz v. Board of ParoleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
- Ramoz v. Board of ParoleCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
- State v. StoneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005