Peed v. Hill
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, J.
Petitioner appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm, without discussion, the trial court’s disposition of petitioner’s claims predicated on Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296, 124 S Ct 2531, 159 L Ed 2d 403 (2004). See Miller v. Lampert, 340 Or 1, 125 P3d 1260 (2006); Lutz v. Hill, 205 Or App 252, 134 P3d 1003, rev den, 341 Or 140 (2006). We write only to address petitioner’s claims predicated on Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36, 124 S Ct 1354, 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004). In particular, we conclude that (1) Crawford did not announce a new “watershed…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Blakely v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Watkins v. AckleyOregon Supreme Court · 2022
- Hardegger v. AmsberryCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2020
- Jones v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2007