Hindman v. Lampert

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Hindman v. Lampert

49 P.3d 116, 182 Or. App. 539, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 10, 2002

Docket99-11-30957M; A113444

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 P.3d 116 (Hindman 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

Hindman v. Lampert, 49 P.3d 116, 182 Or. App. 539, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief and awarding the State of Oregon a judgment for costs and for the attorney fees that it paid to petitioner’s counsel. We affirm on the merits of his post-conviction claim without discussion. Petitioner also argues that the trial court failed to make any determination concerning his ability to pay the attorney fees and costs, as Bacote v. Johnson, 333 Or 28, 35 P3d 1019 (2001) requires. Petitioner did not make that argument below, even to the extent that the petitioner did in Bacote. Assuming that the trial court’s action was error apparent on the face of the record, which we do not decide, we perceive no reason to exercise our discretion to consider the issue. ORAP 5.45.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief and awarding the State of Oregon a judgment for costs and for the attorney fees that it paid to petitioner’s counsel. We affirm on the merits of his post-conviction claim without discussion. Petitioner also argues that the trial court failed to make any determination concerning his ability to pay the attorney fees and costs, as Bacote v. Johnson, 333 Or 28, 35 P3d 1019 (2001) requires. Petitioner did not make that argument below, even to the extent that the petitioner did in Bacote. Assuming that the trial court’s action was error apparent on the face of the record, which we do not decide, we perceive no reason to exercise our discretion to consider the issue. ORAP 5.45.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 P.3d 116, 182 Or. App. 539, 2002 Ore. App. LEXIS 1054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hindman-v-lampert-orctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack