State v. Henley
569 P.2d 58, 31 Or. App. 109, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1891
Opinion
The thrust of defendant’s assignment of error in this case is incompetent performance by his trial counsel. As we noted in State v. Robinson, 25 Or App 675, 550 P2d 758 (1976), this issue, except in rare instances, is one which can be properly resolved only in a post-conviction proceeding in which evidence can be taken. This is not one of those instances.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Henley, 569 P.2d 58, 31 Or. App. 109, 1977 Ore. App. LEXIS 1891 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
569 P.2d 58 (State v. Henley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Windress
752 P.2d 326 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1988)
State v. Chase
624 P.2d 1100 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
State v. Howard
621 P.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State v. Bateman
616 P.2d 1206 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State v. Cardwell
615 P.2d 1198 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)
State v. Durham
569 P.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)
State v. Myhrvold
569 P.2d 59 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1977)