Legal Opinion

Gordon v. Keeney

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 28, 1987No. 151,488; CA A40811PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

In this post-conviction case, petitioner asserts that his counsel at his criminal trial provided ineffective assistance. He admits that he could have raised that claim in a previous post-conviction case but alleges that he could not reasonably have raised it, because his counsel in the first post-conviction case also provided ineffective assistance. Petitioner is incorrect. Counsel’s alleged derelictions are not relevant to whether the claims could reasonably have been raised at the time of the first petition for post-conviction relief. See ORS 138.550(3).

On appeal, the state also takes the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Hetrick v. KeeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986
  2. Hetrick v. KeeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1986

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Dotta v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API