Barteaux v. Mills

286 P.3d 1243, 252 Or. App. 313, 2012 WL 4005613, 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1125

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned us to reconsider our decision that reversed and remanded the post-conviction judgment in this case, seeking, among other things, clarification of the tasks for the parties and the post-conviction court on remand. We allow the petition to provide the requested clarification.

In assessing a claim that trial counsel in petitioner’s criminal case provided inadequate legal assistance, the post-conviction court proceded from what has now been confirmed in Lafler v. Cooper,_US_, 132 S Ct 1376, 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye,_US_, 132 S Ct 1399, 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012), to have been a false first premise. Accordingly, as defendant posits in his reconsideration petition, the “court intends for the parties and the post-conviction court to simply start over (i.e., to consider anew both the deficient-performance question and the prejudice question), now that Frye and Lafler” have been decided.

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