State v. Liston, 374 P.3d 977 (Clackamas Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Liston, 374 P.3d 977 (Clackamas Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent
v.
DAVID SCOTT LISTON
CR0202348; A157693.
Clackamas County Circuit Court, Oregon.
May 11, 2016.
374 P.3d 977
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erik Blumenthal, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant., Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Garrett, Lagesen, Ortega.
Published
PER CURIAM

Defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his petition for appointed counsel under ORS 138.694 (2013), amended by Or Laws 2015, ch 564, § 3, to represent him in a post-conviction deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing proceeding. ORS 138.690 (2013), amended by Or Laws 2015, ch 564, § 1, authorized a convicted felon, in certain circumstances, to file a motion requesting performance of DNA testing on specific evidence. That person could also file a petition under ORS 138.694 (2013) for appointment of counsel to assist the person in determining whether to file a motion requesting DNA testing. State v. Templeton, 275 Or App 69, 75, 364 P3d 6 (2015) (reversing order denying defendant’s petition for appointed counsel where defendant complied with statutory requirements of ORS 138.694 (2013)).

In this case, it is undisputed that defendant filed a petition for appointed counsel that complied with the statutory requirements of ORS 138.694 (2013). The state, therefore, concedes that the trial court erred by denying defendant’s petition. We agree, accept the state’s concession, and reverse the trial court’s denial of his petition.

Reversed.