Legal Opinion

Larsen v. Nooth

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided June 20, 2018No. A162167PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

*525Petitioner, who was required to wear an electronic restraint device at his criminal trial, *485appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not objecting to the use of the electronic restraint or requiring that a record be made to justify the use of the restraint. He raises two assignments of error. In the first, he contends that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to relief absent a showing of actual prejudice. However, as petitioner recognizes, that contention is foreclosed by…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sproule v. CourseyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. MerrillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
  2. Lankford v. CainCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2022
  3. State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-BurdetteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  4. State v. Mosqueda-Rivera-BurdetteCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2025
  5. State v. P. F.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2026

2 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