Legal Opinion

Haynes v. Keeney

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 20, 1987No. 85-1017, 85-1298, 85-1431, 85-1432, 85-1562, 85-1563, 85-1564, 152,406 CA A38857 (Control), A38858, A38859, A38860, A38861, A38862, A38863, A38864PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDeits, J.

Petitioner filed petitions for post-conviction relief, ORS 138.510 - ORS 138.680, challenging nine misdemeanor convictions 1 which occurred between 1965 and 1970. He contends that he was not informed by the judges, or otherwise made aware of, his constitutional rights. 2 After consolidating the cases, the court concluded that petitioner was not entitled to post-conviction relief. The court’s sole finding was that “petitioner has failed in his burden of proof in regard to the above allegations.”

Petitioner contends that, because the record does not affirmatively indicate that he voluntarily and…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1974
  2. Stelts v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Miller v. GladdenOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  4. Boag v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  5. Stelts v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Whipple v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Meyers v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  3. State v. CrainCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  4. Datt v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
  5. Datt v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API