Legal Opinion

Soderstrom v. Premo

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided November 4, 2015No. 09C19860; A154278PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLagesen, P. J.

Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. The petition alleged three claims for relief: (1) petitioner’s convictions were secured in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to the adequate and effective assistance of counsel (Claim 1); (2) petitioner’s convictions were secured in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights to the adequate and effective assistance of appellate counsel (Claim 2); and (3) petitioner’s convictions were secured in violation of his right to due process, in that the prosecutor failed to disclose…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Harrington v. RichterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
  3. Datt v. HillOregon Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Pratt v. ArmenakisCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  5. Walker v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2013

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Asbill v. AngelozziCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  2. Dudrov v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  3. Gonzales v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2015
  4. Fisher v. AngelozziCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
  5. Himebaugh v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2016

3 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