Birch v. Lampert

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Birch v. Lampert

49 P.3d 114, 182 Or. App. 541, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1061

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 10, 2002

Docket00-05-250M; A112189

StatusPublished

This text of 49 P.3d 114 (Birch v. Lampert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Birch v. Lampert, 49 P.3d 114, 182 Or. App. 541, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1061 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus and the entry of a judgment for reimbursement of $525 in state-paid attorney fees related to the petition. We reject his arguments on the merits without discussion. Petitioner’s only argument at the trial court concerning the judgment for attorney fees was that courts did not award such fees in 1989, the time of his conviction. He does not make that argument on appeal. None of the arguments that he does make constitutes error apparent on the face of the record, and we therefore decline to review them. Cf. Bacote v. Johnson, 333 Or 28, 31-32, 35 P3d 1019 (2001) (objection that court had failed even to make an inquiry as to petitioner’s ability to pay was sufficient to preserve the issue of ability to pay for appeal).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus and the entry of a judgment for reimbursement of $525 in state-paid attorney fees related to the petition. We reject his arguments on the merits without discussion. Petitioner’s only argument at the trial court concerning the judgment for attorney fees was that courts did not award such fees in 1989, the time of his conviction. He does not make that argument on appeal. None of the arguments that he does make constitutes error apparent on the face of the record, and we therefore decline to review them. Cf. Bacote v. Johnson, 333 Or 28, 31-32, 35 P3d 1019 (2001) (objection that court had failed even to make an inquiry as to petitioner’s ability to pay was sufficient to preserve the issue of ability to pay for appeal).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 P.3d 114, 182 Or. App. 541, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birch-v-lampert-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack