Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012

Barteaux v. Mills

Barteaux v. Mills
Court of Appeals of Oregon · Decided September 12, 2012 · Armstrong, Duncan, Haselton
252 Or. App. 313; 286 P.3d 1243; 2012 WL 4005613; 2012 Ore. App. LEXIS 1125

Barteaux v. Mills

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM

Defendant has petitioned us to reconsider our decision that reversed and remanded the post-conviction judgment in this case, seeking, among other things, clarification of the tasks for the parties and the post-conviction court on remand. We allow the petition to provide the requested clarification.

In assessing a claim that trial counsel in petitioner’s criminal case provided inadequate legal assistance, the post-conviction court proceded from what has now been confirmed in Lafler v. Cooper,_US_, 132 S Ct 1376, 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye,_US_, 132 S Ct 1399, 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012), to have been a false first premise. Accordingly, as defendant posits in his reconsideration petition, the “court intends for the parties and the post-conviction court to simply start over (i.e., to consider anew both the deficient-performance question and the prejudice question), now that Frye and Lafler” have been decided.

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.