State v. Chase

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Chase

624 P.2d 1100, 51 Or. App. 289, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2503

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 16, 1981

DocketNo. B58-682, CA 19117

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 624 P.2d 1100 (State v. Chase) 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

State v. Chase, 624 P.2d 1100, 51 Or. App. 289, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2503 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law in violation of the Oregon and United States Constitutions. As we noted in State v. Robinson, 25 Or App 675, 550 P2d 758 (1976), that question can be properly resolved only in a post conviction proceeding (ORS 138.510 - 138.680) in which evidence can be adduced at a hearing. Although we indicated in Robinson, as well as in subsequent cases (e.g., State v. Henley, 31 Or App 109, 569 P2d 58 (1977)), that there may be rare instances where this issue may be raised on direct appellate review, we have been cited to no such case in which we found that rare instance; we conclude that this case is not one of them, and do not consider the question.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel and due process of law in violation of the Oregon and United States Constitutions. As we noted in State v. Robinson, 25 Or App 675, 550 P2d 758 (1976), that question can be properly resolved only in a post conviction proceeding (ORS 138.510 - 138.680) in which evidence can be adduced at a hearing. Although we indicated in Robinson, as well as in subsequent cases (e.g., State v. Henley, 31 Or App 109, 569 P2d 58 (1977)), that there may be rare instances where this issue may be raised on direct appellate review, we have been cited to no such case in which we found that rare instance; we conclude that this case is not one of them, and do not consider the question.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 P.2d 1100, 51 Or. App. 289, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 2503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-chase-orctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack