252 Or. App. 313 286 P.3d 1243

On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed July 25,

reconsideration allowed; former opinion (250 Or App 767, 281 P3d 661) clarified and adhered to as clarified September 12, 2012

MERVIN BARTEAUX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

Umatilla County Circuit Court

CV081141; A145272

286 P3d 1243

Mary H. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.

Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge.

PER CURIAM

*314PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned us to reconsider our decision that reversed and remanded the post-conviction judgment in this case, seeking, among other things, clarification of the tasks for the parties and the post-conviction court on remand. We allow the petition to provide the requested clarification.

In assessing a claim that trial counsel in petitioner’s criminal case provided inadequate legal assistance, the post-conviction court proceded from what has now been confirmed in Lafler v. Cooper,_US_, 132 S Ct 1376, 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye,_US_, 132 S Ct 1399, 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012), to have been a false first premise. Accordingly, as defendant posits in his reconsideration petition, the “court intends for the parties and the post-conviction court to simply start over (i.e., to consider anew both the deficient-performance question and the prejudice question), now that Frye and Lafler” have been decided.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.

Barteaux v. Mills
252 Or. App. 313 286 P.3d 1243

Case Details

Name
Barteaux v. Mills
Decision Date
Sep 12, 2012
Citations

252 Or. App. 313

286 P.3d 1243

Jurisdiction
Oregon

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!