Truong v. Premo

When a trial court’s exercise of discretion “flows from a mistaken legal premise, its decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.” Lopez v. Nooth, 287 Or App 731, 734, 403 P3d 484 (2017).

Truong appealed a judgment that denied his petition for post-conviction relief.  Truong assigned error to the court’s denial of his claims for relief under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308, 417 P3d 993 (1996), and the denial of his request for “suitable counsel” under ORS 138.590.  Truong argued that his counsel had agreed and failed to add claims to the original petition in place of Truong’s Church motion.  The delay resulted in the trial court denying his Church claims.  Truong also argued that his counsel was not adequate because of those failures.  When a trial court’s exercise of discretion “flows from a mistaken legal premise, its decision may be legally impermissible because it was guided by the wrong substantive standard.” Lopez v. Nooth, 287 Or App 731, 734, 403 P3d 484 (2017).  The Court held that because Truong had claims that his counsel misled him at minimum, the court was required to consider Truong’s “suitable counsel” argument.  Reversed and remanded.