Johnson v. Zenon

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Johnson v. Zenon

805 P.2d 750, 105 Or. App. 621, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 196

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedFebruary 13, 1991

Docket87C-11900; CA A63645

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 805 P.2d 750 (Johnson v. Zenon) 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

Johnson v. Zenon, 805 P.2d 750, 105 Or. App. 621, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 196 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Petitioner pled guilty to first degree robbery and was sentenced as a dangerous offender. ORS 161.725. At the post-conviction hearing he alleged that, before entry of his guilty plea, his trial counsel had failed to advise him about, and he was otherwise unaware of, the dangerous offender statute. Accordingly, he argues that he was denied adequate assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was not voluntarily made.

Defendants who plead guilty and are sentenced under the dangerous offender statute must be advised of that statute before entry of their pleas. Here, the post-conviction court found that petitioner “understood that the dangerous offender sentence could be imposed.” That finding is supported by evidence of discussions that took place before entry of the plea. Therefore, the post-conviction court correctly concluded that petitioner was not denied adequate assistance of counsel and was not entitled to post-conviction relief.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals from a denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Petitioner pled guilty to first degree robbery and was sentenced as a dangerous offender. ORS 161.725. At the post-conviction hearing he alleged that, before entry of his guilty plea, his trial counsel had failed to advise him about, and he was otherwise unaware of, the dangerous offender statute. Accordingly, he argues that he was denied adequate assistance of counsel and his guilty plea was not voluntarily made.

Defendants who plead guilty and are sentenced under the dangerous offender statute must be advised of that statute before entry of their pleas. Here, the post-conviction court found that petitioner “understood that the dangerous offender sentence could be imposed.” That finding is supported by evidence of discussions that took place before entry of the plea. Therefore, the post-conviction court correctly concluded that petitioner was not denied adequate assistance of counsel and was not entitled to post-conviction relief.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

805 P.2d 750, 105 Or. App. 621, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-zenon-orctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack