Mueller v. Benning
This text of 798 P.2d 267 (Mueller v. Benning) 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.
Opinion
Appellant was found guilty except for insanity of burglary in the first degree after waiving a jury trial.1 He was committed to the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board for a period not to exceed 20 years. He seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court entered a judgment dismissing the petition.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition, because he presented sufficient evidence that he was denied effective assistance of counsel.2 Respondent argues that appellant’s proper remedy is post-conviction relief. Respondent contends that “the court below lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter and thus this court also lacks jurisdiction to review the decision of the circuit court.”
Respondent is correct that post-conviction relief is appellant’s sole remedy. ORS 138.540(1); ORS 34.330(3).3
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
798 P.2d 267, 103 Or. App. 649, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 1309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mueller-v-benning-orctapp-1990.