Steltz v. Cain

“[ORS 34.355 provides ‘discretionary and implicit authority’ for the court to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners in habeas cases. Combs v. Baldwin, 161 Or App 270, 276, 984 P2d 366 (1999).” Under State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66, 73, 240 P3d 1099 (2010), the Court held that the habeas court “must provide enough information to enable appellate court to engage in meaningful review of the court's exercise of discretion.”

Plaintiff filed a writ of habeas corpus along with a “Motion for Appointment of Council” under ORS 34.355 and ORS 34.365. The habeas court’s general judgment denying Plaintiff’s petition did not address Plaintiff’s motion for appointment for council. Plaintiff then filed a second motion requesting appointment of council, which was also unaddressed by the habeas court. The issue on appeal is whether the habeas court properly exercised its discretion under ORS 34.355. “[ORS 34.355 provides ‘discretionary and implicit authority’ for the court to appoint counsel for indigent petitioners in habeas cases. Combs v. Baldwin, 161 Or App 270, 276, 984 P2d 366 (1999).” Under State v. Kacin, 237 Or. App. 66, 73, 240 P3d 1099 (2010), the Court held that the habeas court “must provide enough information to enable appellate court to engage in meaningful review of the court's exercise of discretion.” While the habeas court found plaintiff’s claims to be unintelligible, on appeal, the Court vacated and remanded holding that the failure to rule on Plaintiff’s motion for council was an abuse of discretion by the habeas court. The Court reasoned that Plaintiff was “entitled to a ruling with sufficient explanation on the record in response to his motion to appoint counsel.” While the Court did not hold that the habeas court was required to grant his motion, the habeas court was required to show on the record the discretion used in making its decision. Judgment dismissing writ of habeas corpus vacated and remanded.