Montez v. Czerniak, (CC 97C12376
| Citation | 355 Or. 598,330 P.3d 595 |
| Decision Date | 12 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | (CC 97C12376,SC S059138).,CA A130258 |
| Parties | Marco Antonio MONTEZ, Petitioner on Review, v. Stanley CZERNIAK, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent on Review. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On petitioner on review's petition for reconsideration filed April 22, 2014. *
Daniel J. Casey, Portland, filed the petition for reconsideration.
No appearance contra.
Before BALMER, Chief Justice, WALTERS and BALDWIN, Justices, and RIGGS and DURHAM, Senior Judges, Justices pro tempore.**
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this court's decision in Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. 1, 322 P.3d 487 (2014), a post-conviction relief case in which we affirmed both the Court of Appeals decision and the post-conviction judgment below. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner takes exception to our holding as to the disclosure of petitioner's previous death sentence at his penalty phase retrial, as well as various aspects of our analysis regarding omitted expert mitigation evidence. With regard to those arguments, we affirm our previous decision without further discussion.
Petitioner has correctly noted, however, that our opinion misidentified Kenneth McPhail as an inmate witness who testified on petitioner's behalf at the Multnomah County Circuit Court. See Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. at 29 n. 8, 322 P.3d 487 () That identification was incorrect; the record shows that the inmate who testified in Multnomah County Circuit Court was, in fact, Michael McDonnell. Accordingly, we allow this petition for reconsideration and modify our decision to correct that error.
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
*Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Don Dickey, Judge. 237 Or.App. 276, 239 P.3d 1023 (2010).
**Kistler, Linder, Landau, and Brewer, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Franke
...a lawyer who provides adequate assistance.’ " Montez v. Czerniak , 355 Or. 1, 6, 322 P.3d 487, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 355 Or. 598, 330 P.3d 595 (2014) (quoting State v. Smith , 339 Or. 515, 526, 123 P.3d 261 (2005) ).2 Thus, we have held that a petitioner seeking post-conviction ......
-
Antoine v. Taylor
...standards are "functionally equivalent." Montez v. Czerniak , 355 Or. 1, 6-7, 322 P.3d 487, adh'd to as modified on recons , 355 Or. 598, 330 P.3d 595 (2014). We begin with the first prong of the analysis, whether petitioner has shown that counsel performed deficiently. To prove deficient p......
-
Jackson v. Franke
...that they are function-ally equivalent, Montez v. Czerniak , 355 Or. 1, 6-7, 322 P.3d 487, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 355 Or. 598, 330 P.3d 595 (2014) (so explaining),1 and the elements of proving constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel are essentially the same under both c......
-
Farmer v. Premo
...Amendment to the United States Constitution. Montez v. Czerniak , 355 Or. 1, 6-7, 322 P.3d 487, 493, adh'd to as modified on recons , 355 Or. 598, 330 P.3d 595 (2014). To prevail on a claim of inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, a petitioner must establish both "th......