Johnson v. Premo
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.
The issue in this case is whether a petitioner in a post-conviction appeal is entitled both to be represented by counsel and to appear pro se. The Court of Appeals held that, under this court’s decision in Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308, 417 P2d 993 (1966), a post-conviction petitioner is entitled to be represented by counsel on appeal and, in the same appeal, to file any motions on his own behalf that his counsel has declined to file, provided the petitioner has a good faith and objectively reasonable basis for believing that competent counsel would have filed such motions. We conclude that…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- State v. StevensOregon Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- Bartz v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. RoscoeArizona Supreme Court · 1996
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. HightowerOregon Supreme Court · 2017
- Verduzco v. State of OregonOregon Supreme Court · 2015
- Bogle v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2018
- Gutale v. StateOregon Supreme Court · 2019
- Lopez v. NoothCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.