Court of Appeals of Oregon· 9/25/2013

Hale v. Belleque

Citations

258 Or. App. 587
312 P.3d 533
2013 WL 5351061
2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1162

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that counsel rendered inadequate assistance in not requesting a particular jury instruction, because rea- sonable counsel would have requested it “in light of the state of the law at that time”
rejecting “conten- tion that the proper remedy is a remand for the post-conviction court to redeter- mine the question of prejudice, which can be determined in this case as a matter of law”
denying the state’s petition for reconsideration of a determination that a petitioner was entitled to post-conviction relief based on his trial counsel’s failure to request a jury concurrence instruction. See Hale v. Belleque, 255 Or App 653, 298 P3d 596 (2013)
“The reasonableness of counsel’s performance is evaluated from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances [.] ”
the allegations of the petition frame the issues that a PCR court can consider
“Preservation principles apply in the context of post-conviction relief and, as a general rule, arguments not made to the post-conviction court in support of a claim will not be considered on appeal.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Haselton, Nakamoto, Wollheim

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

23 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.