Austin v. Premo

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 08-31-2016
  • Case #: A159693
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, P.J. for the Court; & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In a post-conviction appeal, Petitioner must raise a substantial question of law as to both elements in order to avoid summary affirmance. A substantial question of law is a question of law that is important, having solid or firm foundation being soundly based or presenting probable facts or circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable legal hypothesis.

Petitioner appealed the post­conviction court’s judgment denying post­conviction relief on Petitioner’s claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief of a claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel based on its conclusion that Petitioner proved neither the deficient performance element nor the prejudice element of a claim. Petitioner must raise a substantial question of law as to both elements in order to avoid summary affirmance of his conviction. A substantial question of law is a question of law that is important, having solid or firm foundation being soundly based or presenting probable facts or circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable legal hypothesis. The court may summarily affirm a judgment in a post­conviction relief action if the court determines no substantial question of law is presented on appeal. Petitioner did not raise any substantial question regarding the post­conviction court’s ruling the motion for summary affirmance. Affirmed.

Advanced Search