Johnson v. Premo

Nothing in the Church opinion may be understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel; Church says that if a post-conviction attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3).

The issue presented in this case was whether a petitioner in a post-conviction appeal was entitled to both be represented by counsel and to appear pro se. The Court of Appeals held that under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or. 308, 417 P2d 993 (1966), a post-conviction petitioner was entitled to be represented by counsel on appeal and, in the same appeal, to file any motions on his own behalf that counsel had declined to file, provided that petitioner had a good faith and objectively reasonable basis for believing that competent counsel would have filed such motions. This Court concluded that nothing in the Church opinion may be understood to state an exception to the requirement of ORS 9.320 that represented parties ordinarily must appear through counsel. Nothing in that opinion sanctions the kind of "hybrid-representation" presented here. Church says that if a post-conviction attorney fails to assert a ground for relief, the petitioner must bring that fact to the attention of the court to avoid the effect of ORS 138.550(3), The order of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, on other grounds, and reversed in part.