Turner v. Cupp, 114318
| Decision Date | 08 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 114318,114318 |
| Citation | 619 P.2d 1357,49 Or.App. 671 |
| Parties | Robert Burch TURNER, Appellant, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. ; CA 17700. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Michael Curtis, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Virginia L. Linder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were James M. Brown, Atty. Gen., John R. McCulloch, Jr., Sol. Gen., and William F. Gary, Deputy Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before GILLETTE, P. J., and ROBERTS and CAMPBELL, JJ.
This is a post-conviction relief proceeding in which petitioner alleged that an incorrect representation by his trial attorney concerning the effect of the Oregon State Parole Board's "matrix system" and the effect of a minimum sentence caused him to enter a guilty plea to a charge of murder. The trial court found that the petitioner had, in fact, been misled, but determined that he was not prejudiced and therefore denied post-conviction relief. We reverse.
Petitioner was charged with Murder in the First Degree in Lane County. On the date the case was set for trial, petitioner was optimistic about his success. However, his trial attorney was far less optimistic and suggested that petitioner consider alternatives to trial such as a guilty plea.
The resulting discussion between the petitioner and his attorney centered on the length of sentence the petitioner would be required to serve prior to being eligible for parole if he entered a plea of guilty. Both men recognized that a life sentence would be mandatory if the plea was to murder; petitioner's concern was the opportunity to be placed on parole. He had performed his own calculation under the Parole Board's "matrix system" and had determined that, given the nature of the crime and his prior criminal history, he might not be eligible for parole for 20 years. He desired to be eligible in 10 years. Petitioner's defense counsel assured him that the trial judge could override the matrix system by imposing a minimum sentence of 10 years. The defense counsel was honestly but mistakenly under the impression that this was true.
A plea bargain was struck, and the petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison, with a minimum sentence of 10 years. The minimum sentence was later overturned on appeal, and the petitioner was resentenced to life imprisonment. Under the matrix system calculation made by the Parole...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krummacher v. Gierloff
...when a defendant is called upon to waive fundamental rights, as by a guilty plea or waiver of jury trial, see, e. g., Turner v. Cupp, 49 Or.App. 671, 619 P.2d 1357 (1980). This case involves the type of attorneys' functions which is most difficult to evaluate for constitutional adequacy, th......
-
Hartzog v. Keeney
...when a defendant is called upon to waive fundamental rights, as by a guilty plea or waiver of jury trial, see, e.g., Turner v. Cupp, 49 Or App 671, 619 P2d 1357 (1980)." (Emphasis 290 Or. at 874-75, 627 P.2d 458. Lyons v. Pearce, 298 Or. 554, 567, 694 P.2d 969 (1985), after discussing some ......
- State v. Bardell, 79-05748
-
Turner v. Cupp, 114,318
...ROBERTS, J., and CAMPBELL, J. Pro Tem. GILLETTE, Presiding Judge. The state petitions for review of our decision in Turner v. Cupp, 49 Or.App. 671, 619 P.2d 1357 (1980), contending that we erred in granting defendant post-conviction relief because he was incorrectly advised by his attorney ......