Legal Opinion

Layton v. Hall

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided May 29, 2002No. 00C-17140; A113150PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. Stevens v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. LangdonOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  3. State v. RemmeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2001
  4. Pachl v. ZenonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1996
  5. State v. LaytonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1999

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lambert v. PalmateerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  2. Stroup v. HillCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2004
  3. Burdge v. PalmateerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2003
  4. State v. DavillaCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
  5. Holloway v. GowerCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API