Ventura v. Cupp
| Decision Date | 20 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | TC 107084.,CA 15265.,SC 26884. |
| Citation | 289 Or. 45,610 P.2d 1232 |
| Parties | Milton VENTURA, Petitioner, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
No appearance contra.
Petitioner asks for reconsideration of his petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed a judgment denying him post-conviction relief. Having previously been convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment, petitioner unsuccessfully sought post-conviction relief on the ground that the consecutive sentences were not authorized by law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief without opinion, only citing State v. Jones, 250 Or. 59, 440 P.2d 371 (1968). Ventura v. Cupp, 44 Or. App. 296, 607 P.2d 231 (1980).
Petitioner contends that State v. Jones was superseded by the enactment of the revised criminal code in 1971. Whatever the ultimate merits of that claim, it is not frivolous. Nor is it necessarily foreclosed by the recent decision in State v. Garcia, 288 Or. 413, 605 P.2d 670 (1980). On the other hand, ORS 138.550(2) provides that after a direct appeal, "no ground for relief may be asserted ... unless such ground was not asserted and could not reasonably have been asserted in the direct appellate review proceeding." Thus apart from State v. Jones, supra, cited by the Court of Appeals for its affirmance, this petition involves the unrelated question whether petitioner's case falls within some exception to the quoted requirement of ORS 138.550(2), a claim not made or supported in the petition. It seems useful to note this as a renewed caution against unwarranted inferences from a denial of a petition for review. See 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Bd. of Co. Comm., 284 Or. 41, 584 P.2d 1371 (1978). Cf. Barnes v. Paulus, 284 Or. 81, 588 P.2d 1084 (1978).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walton v. Thompson
...intervening change in the law had to be constitutional in nature. In Pettibone v. Cupp, 43 Or.App. 955, 607 P.2d 742 (1979),rev. den., 289 Or. 45 (1980), the petitioner sought post-conviction relief on the ground that the jury in his criminal trial had been erroneously instructed on the bur......
-
Moen v. Peterson, C-11030
...49 Or App 691, 695, 621 P2d 579 (1980), [rev den 290 Or 491 (1981) ]; Pettibone v. Cupp, 43 Or App 955, 959, 607 P2d 742 (1979), rev den 289 Or 45 (1980)." 103 Or App at 74, 795 P.2d Our first sentence in that quotation is wrong. In Kellotat v. Cupp, 78 Or.App. 61, 714 P.2d 1074 (1986), the......
-
Rogers v. Saylor
...the damage limitations in the Oregon Tort Claims Act. See Rosacker v. Multnomah County, 43 Or.App. 583, 603 P.2d 1216 (1979), rev. den. 289 Or. 45 (1980). Plaintiff's claim against the five individual defendants, the only claim that is before us, is quite different. His section 1983 remedy ......
-
Long v. Armenakis
...e.g., Twitty v. Maass, 96 Or. App. 631, 773 P.2d 1336 (1989); Pettibone v. Cupp, 43 Or.App. 955, 959, 607 P.2d 742 (1979), rev. den. 289 Or. 45 (1980). The same result does not necessarily follow where the constitutional principle is an acknowledged one, and the uncertainty is in its scope ......