Norton v. Cupp

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Norton v. Cupp

636 P.2d 468, 54 Or. App. 897, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3934

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedNovember 23, 1981

DocketNo. 115,631, CA A20649

StatusPublished

This text of 636 P.2d 468 (Norton v. Cupp) 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

Norton v. Cupp, 636 P.2d 468, 54 Or. App. 897, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3934 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The court found he had been denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because his appointed counsel had failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that he had not shown a meritorious ground for an appeal. For the reasons expressed in Daniel v. Cupp, 54 Or App 824, 636 P2d 452 (1981), we reverse and remand for entry of an order allowing petitioner to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The court found he had been denied effective assistance of appellate counsel because his appointed counsel had failed to file a timely notice of appeal. The court dismissed the petition on the basis that he had not shown a meritorious ground for an appeal. For the reasons expressed in Daniel v. Cupp, 54 Or App 824, 636 P2d 452 (1981), we reverse and remand for entry of an order allowing petitioner to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

636 P.2d 468, 54 Or. App. 897, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-cupp-orctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack