Larsen v. Nooth

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Larsen v. Nooth

425 P.3d 484, 292 Or. App. 524

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 20, 2018

DocketA162167

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 425 P.3d 484 (Larsen v. Nooth) 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

Larsen v. Nooth, 425 P.3d 484, 292 Or. App. 524 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM

*525Petitioner, who was required to wear an electronic restraint device at his criminal trial, *485appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not objecting to the use of the electronic restraint or requiring that a record be made to justify the use of the restraint. He raises two assignments of error. In the first, he contends that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to relief absent a showing of actual prejudice. However, as petitioner recognizes, that contention is foreclosed by Sproule v. Coursey , 276 Or. App. 417, 367 P.3d 946, rev. den. , 359 Or. 777, 381 P.3d 818 (2016). Petitioner contends that Sproule was wrongly decided and should be overruled; we are not persuaded. In the second assignment of error, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it admitted the affidavit of Corporal Bruce. Having considered the affidavit and the parties' arguments, we disagree.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

*525Petitioner, who was required to wear an electronic restraint device at his criminal trial, *485appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not objecting to the use of the electronic restraint or requiring that a record be made to justify the use of the restraint. He raises two assignments of error. In the first, he contends that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to relief absent a showing of actual prejudice. However, as petitioner recognizes, that contention is foreclosed by Sproule v. Coursey , 276 Or. App. 417, 367 P.3d 946, rev. den. , 359 Or. 777, 381 P.3d 818 (2016). Petitioner contends that Sproule was wrongly decided and should be overruled; we are not persuaded. In the second assignment of error, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it admitted the affidavit of Corporal Bruce. Having considered the affidavit and the parties' arguments, we disagree.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 P.3d 484, 292 Or. App. 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larsen-v-nooth-orctapp-2018.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack