Baker v. Premo

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
• Date Filed: 01-07-2015
• Case #: A151997
• Judge(s)/Court Below: Garrett, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & DeVore, J.

Trial counsel agreeing to change the terms of a plea agreement in such a way that increases the total sentence is not enough to prove constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel if the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence.

Petitioner challenged the post-conviction court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Petitioner argued on appeal that his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate because counsel changed the terms of his plea agreement which, according to petitioner, resulted in his sentence growing from 152 months, to 180 months. The Court held the post-conviction court did not err in granting defendant’s summary judgment motion because there was no dispute that the sentencing court would have imposed the same sentence, whether or not trial counsel objected. The Court further found petitioner did not show prejudice, so he could not prevail on his claims. Affirmed.

Share Subscribe