State v. Netzler
This text of 384 P.3d 171 (State v. Netzler) 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
In 2010, defendant in this case pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.690 to 138.698.1 The court denied the petition, and defendant appealed. On appeal, the parties filed a joint motion for remand, which was granted. Accordingly, the trial court’s order was vacated and the case remanded for reconsideration. On reconsideration, the trial court again denied defendant’s petition for appointment of counsel.
A defendant who has been convicted of, inter alia, first-degree sexual abuse may “file a petition in the circuit court in which the judgment of conviction was entered requesting appointment of counsel at state expense to assist the person in determining whether to file a petition under ORS 138.690 [for DNA testing].”2 ORS 138.694 (2013). The petition must be accompanied by:
“(a) A completed affidavit of eligibility for appointment of counsel at state expense; and
“(b) An affidavit stating that:
“(A) The person meets the criteria in ORS 138.690(1);
“(B) The person is innocent of the charge for which the • person was convicted * * *;
[824]*824“(C) The identity of the perpetrator of the crime or conduct was at issue in the original prosecution * * *; and
“(D) The person is without sufficient funds and assets, as shown by the affidavit required by paragraph (a) of this subsection, to hire an attorney to represent the person in determining whether to file a motion under ORS 138.690.”
ORS 138.694(1). Under ORS 138.694(2), the court “shall grant” a petition for appointment of counsel if
“(a) The petitioner complies with the requirements of subsection (1) of this section; and
“(b) It appears to the court that the petitioner is financially unable to employ suitable counsel possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature and complexity of the matter.”
Defendant attached to his petition the affidavits required by ORS 138.694(1), and, as the state concedes, he filed an affidavit “that complied with the requirements set forth in ORS 138.694(l)(b)(A) - (D).” Under the circumstances, the state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s petition for appointed counsel. We agree, and accept the state’s concession.
In denying defendant’s petition for appointed counsel on remand, the court noted that defendant had pleaded guilty and observed that, although defendant’s affidavit stated that the perpetrator of the crime was at issue, “because Defendant has pled guilty, the Court does not find that the identity of the perpetrator was at issue.” However, at the appointment of counsel stage, the trial court is not tasked with evaluating the credibility of the assertions of the affidavit under ORS 138.694(l)(b). Instead, the court “shall grant” the petition for appointment of counsel if a defendant has complied with ORS 138.694(1) and if it “appears to the court that” the defendant is “financially unable to employ suitable counsel.”
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
384 P.3d 171, 281 Or. App. 822, 2016 Ore. App. LEXIS 1332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-netzler-orctapp-2016.