Layton v. Hall
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtHaselton, P. J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment granting post-conviction relief. Defendant asserts that the trial court erred in determining that: (1) petitioner’s criminal defense counsel breached the standard of constitutionally adequate representation by failing to object that petitioner’s sentence violated OAR 213-005-0002(4); and (2) petitioner was prejudiced by that failure because OAR 213-005-0002(4) did, in fact, preclude the imposition of that sentence. We agree with the trial court’s conclusions in both respects. Thus, we affirm.
The material facts are undisputed. Petitioner was convicted,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Stevens v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 1995
- State v. LangdonOregon Supreme Court · 2000
- State v. RemmeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
- Pachl v. ZenonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
- State v. LaytonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Lambert v. PalmateerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- Stroup v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
- Burdge v. PalmateerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
- State v. DavillaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- Holloway v. GowerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.