Legal Opinion

Mellem v. State

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 17, 1991No. A8901-00611; CA A62515PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, P. J.

Petitioner seeks post-conviction relief from her conviction of forgery in the first degree, contending that she was denied her right to adequate representation. The trial court denied relief, and she appeals. The sole issue is whether her appointed trial counsel provided her constitutionally adequate representation. We reverse.

The post-conviction court did not make discrete oral or written findings of fact, but the evidence presented at the post-conviction trial was essentially undisputed. Petitioner was arrested July 22,1987, at a bank, after presenting a check made out to her on the account…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Krummacher v. GierloffOregon Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Dotta v. KeeneyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Horn v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002
  2. Carias v. State of OregonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1997
  3. State v. EdwardsCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1995
  4. Stevens v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1994
  5. Horn v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API