Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maxfield v. Cain

Court of Appeals of Oregon

January 3, 2019

BRANDON MAXFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

          Argued and Submitted November 3, 2017

          Malheur County Circuit Court 12129824P; Joseph C. Guimond, Senior Judge.

          Dennis N. Balske argued the cause and fled the briefs for appellant.

          Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Garrett, Judge pro tempore.

         Case Summary:

         Petitioner appeals the post-conviction court's denial of relief, asserting that the court exceeded the scope of remand articulated by the Court of Appeals in Maxfield v. Nooth, 278 Or.App. 684, 377 P.3d 650 (2016). Petitioner argues, and the superintendent concedes, that the post-conviction court exceeded the scope of remand by revisiting the issue of whether trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment instead of addressing the issue of prejudice under the correct standard.

         Held:

         The post-conviction court exceeded the scope of remand by addressing the deficient-performance prong and the case was remanded to the post-conviction court to determine whether trial counsel's deficient performance prejudiced petitioner.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [295 Or.App. 554] POWERS, J.

         This post-conviction case comes to us for a second time after we initially reversed and remanded the judgment denying petitioner relief. See Maxfield v. Nooth, 278 Or.App. 684, 377 P.3d 650 (2016). In this proceeding, petitioner argues, and the superintendent concedes, that the post-conviction court exceeded the scope of remand by revisiting the issue of whether trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment instead of addressing the issue of prejudice under the correct standard. For the reasons set out below, we agree with the parties that the post-conviction court exceeded the scope of remand and we remand again to the post-conviction court to determine whether trial counsel's deficient performance prejudiced petitioner.

         Our first opinion set out the circumstances of petitioner's conviction and petition for post-conviction relief:

"Petitioner was convicted in a bench trial of nine counts of robbery-three counts of first-degree robbery and six counts of second-degree robbery. The trial court sentenced him to a sum of 40 years' incarceration. It did so ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.