Rubi v. Nooth

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Sentencing
  • Date Filed: 05-04-2016
  • Case #: A154008
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; Wilson, S.J.; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Article 1, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution a petitioner is not prejudiced by inadequate counsel if the sentencing court would have sentenced a petitioner the same regardless of the inadequate counsel.

Petitioner appealed a judgment of the post-conviction court that although Petitioner’s trial counsel provided inadequate assistance under Article 1, section 11 of the Oregon Constitution, Petitioner was not prejudiced by it. The trial counsel was inadequate because of a failure to argue that the facts did not constitute kidnapping in the first degree. However, Petitioner was not prejudiced by the inadequate counsel because the sentencing court would have sentenced Petitioner to the top of the agreed-upon range of years regardless of the kidnapping convictions. Therefore, Petitioner was not prejudiced simply by being convicted of the kidnapping counts because the sentencing court would have given the same sentence if Petitioner had not been convicted of the kidnapping counts. Also, the Court found that even if Petitioner had been sentenced without the kidnapping charges the trial court could have legally imposed the sentence at the top of the agreed-upon range of years. Affirmed.

Advanced Search