Legal Opinion

Fisher v. Wright

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided April 24, 1991No. CV88-746; CA A62578PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

In this post-conviction proceeding, petitioner challenges his convictions on three counts entered after he pled guilty. He appeals the dismissal of his petition. We vacate the judgment and remand to the post-conviction court.

Petitioner contends that his trial counsel failed to inform him of the possibility of a minimum sentence before he entered his guilty plea.1 If he did not otherwise have knowledge of the possibility of a minimum sentence, counsel’s failure to inform him renders his convictions void. Hartzog v. Keeney, 304 Or 57, 742 P2d 600 (1987). The post-conviction court concluded…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. RacicotCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  2. Hartzog v. KeeneyOregon Supreme Court · 1987
  3. Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991
  4. Moen v. PetersonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Meyers v. MaassCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1991

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Whipple v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  2. Hinton v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API