From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ARMSTRONG v. CUPP

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 20, 1984
685 P.2d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

133,840; CA A31124

Argued and submitted July 16, 1984

Affirmed August 8, 1984 Reconsideration denied October 19, 1984 Petition for review denied November 20, 1984

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

Clarke C. Brown, Judge.

Michael E. Swaim, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Swaim Betterton, Salem.

Margaret E. Rabin, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Lynn Torno, Certified Law Student, Salem.

Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, Joseph, Chief Judge, and Young, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed.


In this post-conviction proceeding, petitioner argues that his conviction for felony murder should be reversed, and the case remanded for retrial, on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the trial court's denial of relief. On both of defendant's theories, case law establishes that, had counsel acted as petitioner now argues that he should have, petitioner would have lost: (1) On his theory that counsel should have excepted to a jury instruction, defendant argues that the instruction was contrary to State v. Stockett, 278 Or. 637, 565 P.2d 730 (1977). Assuming that to be true, the instruction was not contrary to Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 97 S Ct 2319, 53 L Ed 2d 281 (1977), which opinion supplants Stockett as binding precedent on the issue in question. See State v. Lyon, 65 Or. App. 790, 672 P.2d 1358 (1983). (2) On defendant's theory that it denies him equal protection statutorily to bar him from recourse to the defense of "extreme emotional disturbance," as an accused felony-murderer, while accused intentional murderers may utilize the defense, State v. Reams, 47 Or. App. 907, 616 P.2d 498 (1980), is in point and controlling against him.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

ARMSTRONG v. CUPP

Oregon Court of Appeals
Nov 20, 1984
685 P.2d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

ARMSTRONG v. CUPP

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT ALAN ARMSTRONG, Appellant, v. CUPP, Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Nov 20, 1984

Citations

685 P.2d 1029 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
685 P.2d 1029

Citing Cases

State v. Gordon

Ross, in effect, overruled Groda as a statement of federal constitutional law. See Armstrong v. Cupp, 69 Or.…