Church v. Gladden
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
| Citation | 244 Or. 308,417 P.2d 993 |
| Parties | Paige E. CHURCH, Appellant, v. Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 09 September 1966 |
Page 993
v.
Clarence T. GLADDEN, Warden, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent.
Decided Sept. 9, 1966.
[244 Or. 309]
Page 994
Lawrence A. Aschenbrenner, Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.Wayne M. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Robert Y. Thornton, Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and HOLMAN, JJ.
HOLMAN, Justice.
Petitioner, an inmate of the state penitentiary, appealed from an order of the trial court quashing his [244 Or. 310] petition for post-conviction relief. The defendant's motion to quash was based on the contention that petitioner had previously prosecuted another petition for post-conviction relief in which he either raised, or should have raised, all of his present adequately-stated grounds for relief.
Petitioner was indicted for first-degree felony murder on April 18, 1961, and pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, receiving a sentence of life imprisonment. The
Page 995
four grounds asserted in his petition and relied on for relief in this appeal are as follows:1. The trial court was without jurisdiction to receive petitioner's plea of guilty to second-degree murder because second-degree murder is not a lesser included crime of first-degree felony murder.
2. Petitioner's plea of guilty was involuntary by reason of coercion, duress and promises of leniency.
3. The indictment against petitioner was based solely on testimony which was legally inadmissible.
4. Petitioner made incriminating statements to police officers following his arrest without being advised of his constitutional right to counsel and to remain silent, which statements induced his subsequent plea of guilty.
ORS 138.550(3) provides in part as fllows:
'All grounds for relief claimed by petitioner in a petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be asserted in his original or amended petition, and any grounds not so asserted are deemed waived unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted therein which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition.'
Petitioner alleges that the first and third grounds for relief stated above were not raised in his previous [244 Or. 311] post-conviction proceeding, but could not reasonably have been raised then because his court-appointed attorney failed and refused to do so, although requested to pursue such course of action by the petitioner. Petitioner also alleges that he did raise the second ground for relief in his previous post-conviction proceeding but that he was not given a fair and complete hearing on the issue because three of his witnesses were not present and did not testify, although petitioner requested his attorney to have them present and his attorney promised that he would do so. For the purposes of this opinion we will assume, without deciding, that each of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hopkinson v. District Court, Teton County, s. 84-144
...P.2d 285, cert. denied 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); Kennedy v. State, Wyo., 443 P.2d 138 (1968); Church v. Gladden, 244 Or. 308, 417 P.2d 993 (1966). Endless repeating must stop. The authority for allowing a petition for post-conviction relief does not permit its use ......
-
Teague v. Palmateer
...doctrine could 57 P.3d 182 be raised but was not a basis for relief because doctrine was not retroactive); Church v. Gladden, 244 Or. 308, 311-13, 417 P.2d 993 (1966) (similar).3 As we explained in Myers v. Cupp, 49 Or.App. 691, 621 P.2d 579 (1980), rev. den., 290 Or. 491 (1981), whether a ......
-
Stevens v. Bispham
...assistance of post-conviction relief counsel, and have no other legal recourse with respect to that conviction, Church v. Gladden, 244 Or. 308, 311, 417 P.2d 993 (1966). Today, the majority decides that the cumulative effect of all of this legal malpractice is that the criminal defendant ha......
-
Gutale v. State, CC C131617CV (SC S065136)
...When a post-conviction petitioner wished to raise a claim that counsel did not, this court had outlined procedures, in Church v. Gladden , 244 Or. 308, 417 P.2d 993 (1966), for raising the claim in the first postconviction hearing and held that the petitioner could not save the claim for a ......