From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

REYNOLDS v. CUPP

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 3, 1984
692 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

Summary

holding that an issue that was not and could not reasonably have been raised on direct appeal could not form the basis of post-conviction relief

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Morrow

Opinion

135,955; CA A31054

On appellant's reconsideration filed August 3, 1984; former opinion, filed July 11, 1984 ( 69 Or. App. 208, 684 P.2d 37) adhered to December 19, 1984, petition for review denied January 29, 1985 ( 298 Or. 597)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County.

Richard D. Barber, Judge.

Ken L. Betterton and Swaim Betterton, Salem, for petition.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Warden and Newman, Judges.


PER CURIAM

Reconsideration granted; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.


Petitioner filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court, ORAP 10.05, which we treat as a petition for reconsideration. ORAP 10.10. We affirmed, without opinion, the trial court's denial of post-conviction relief. We grant the petition for reconsideration to explain the basis of our affirmance but adhere to our original decision affirming the judgment.

Petitioner was indicted on three separate counts: robbery in the first degree; intentional murder; and aggravated felony murder. He was convicted by a jury for robbery, manslaughter (as a lesser included offense of intentional murder) and aggravated felony murder. He appealed the convictions and was represented by counsel on the appeal. The convictions were affirmed on appeal and on review. State v. Reynolds, 43 Or. App. 619, 603 P.2d 1223, aff'd 289 Or. 533, 614 P.2d 1158 (1980).

In affirming the denial of post-conviction relief, we concluded that petitioner had either raised or reasonably could have raised each ground urged for post-conviction relief in the direct appeal. ORS 138.550(2) provides:

"When the petitioner sought and obtained direct appellate review of his conviction and sentence, no ground for relief may be asserted * * * under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 unless such ground was not asserted and could not reasonably have been asserted in the direct appellate review proceeding. * * *"

Reconsideration granted; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.


Summaries of

REYNOLDS v. CUPP

Oregon Court of Appeals
Aug 3, 1984
692 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)

holding that an issue that was not and could not reasonably have been raised on direct appeal could not form the basis of post-conviction relief

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Morrow
Case details for

REYNOLDS v. CUPP

Case Details

Full title:JAKE CLARENCE REYNOLDS, Appellant, v. CUPP, Respondent

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Aug 3, 1984

Citations

692 P.2d 648 (Or. Ct. App. 1984)
692 P.2d 648

Citing Cases

Johnson v. Oregon Bd. of Parole Post-Prison Supervision

Respondents assert that petitioner's Crawford claim on post-conviction is barred by the state procedural rule…

Guinn v. Cupp

However, because the shackling issue could have been raised at that time, but was not, petitioner was…