From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perkins v. Keeney

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 5, 1987
731 P.2d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

Summary

In Perkins v. Keeney, 83 Or. App. 318, 319, 731 P.2d 1047, rev den 303 Or. 370 (1987), we held that the petitioner's trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate for failing to object to acquittal-first instructions, given that State v. Ogden, supra, had been decided three years before.

Summary of this case from Aikens v. Maass

Opinion

153,255; CA A39830

Argued and submitted October 27, 1986.

Reversed and remanded January 27, reconsideration denied April 10, petition for review denied May 5, 1987 ( 303 Or. 370).

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Marion County, Richard D. Barber, Judge.

George Eder, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Swaim, Betterton and Eder, Salem.

David Kramer, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, Virginia Linder, Solicitor General, and Scott McAlister, Assistant Attorney General, Salem.

Before Warden, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reversed and remanded.


Petitioner seeks review of a trial court judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends that the post-conviction court erred in determining that he had not been denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel in the underlying case failed to object to the trial court's instruction regarding lesser included offenses.

The trial court instructed the jury:

"Now if you find that the defendant is not guilty of Murder under either theory, you should consider whether the defendant is guilty of Manslaughter in the First Degree.

"* * * * *

"Now, in respect to that charge, if you reach that point, that is if you find defendant not guilty of Murder, why, then you move to Manslaughter in the First Degree."

That instruction required the jury to find petitioner not guilty of the greater offense before considering the lesser-included offense. That was error. State v. Ogden, 35 Or. App. 91, 580 P.2d 1049 (1978). The rule of law stated in Ogden was announced three years before petitioner's trial. Therefore, petitioner's counsel's failure to object to the instruction amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Peaslee v. Keeney, 81 Or. App. 488, 492, 726 P.2d 398 (1986), rev den 302 Or. 571 (1987); see also State v. Allen, 301 Or. 35, 38, 715 P.2d 94 (1986).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Perkins v. Keeney

Oregon Court of Appeals
May 5, 1987
731 P.2d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)

In Perkins v. Keeney, 83 Or. App. 318, 319, 731 P.2d 1047, rev den 303 Or. 370 (1987), we held that the petitioner's trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate for failing to object to acquittal-first instructions, given that State v. Ogden, supra, had been decided three years before.

Summary of this case from Aikens v. Maass
Case details for

Perkins v. Keeney

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN MICHAEL PERKINS, Appellant, v. KEENEY, Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: May 5, 1987

Citations

731 P.2d 1047 (Or. Ct. App. 1987)
731 P.2d 1047

Citing Cases

Aikens v. Maass

Krummacher v. Gierloff, supra, 290 Or at 875. In Perkins v. Keeney, 83 Or. App. 318, 319, 731 P.2d 1047, rev…