138.694
Appointed counsel.
(1) A person described in ORS 138.690 is entitled to counsel during all stages
of the proceedings described in ORS 138.692, 138.696, 138.697 and 138.700.
(2) A person
described in ORS 138.690 may file a petition in the circuit court in which the
judgment of conviction was entered requesting the appointment of counsel at
state expense to assist the person in determining whether to file a motion
under ORS 138.692. The petition must be accompanied by:
(a) A completed
affidavit of eligibility for appointment of counsel at state expense; and
(b) An affidavit
stating that:
(A) The person
meets the criteria in ORS 138.690;
(B) The person is
innocent of the charge for which the person was convicted; and
(C) The person is
without sufficient funds and assets, as shown by the affidavit required by
paragraph (a) of this subsection, to hire an attorney to represent the person
in determining whether to file a motion under ORS 138.692.
(3) The court
shall grant a petition filed under this section if:
(a) The
petitioner complies with the requirements of subsection (2) of this section;
and
(b) It appears to
the court that the petitioner is financially unable to employ suitable counsel
possessing skills and experience commensurate with the nature and complexity of
the matter.
(4) An attorney
appointed under this section:
(a) If other than
counsel provided pursuant to ORS 151.460, is entitled to compensation and
expenses as provided in ORS 135.055; or
(b) If counsel
provided pursuant to ORS 151.460, is entitled to expenses as provided in ORS
135.055. [2001 c.697 §4; 2007 c.800 §3; 2015 c.564 §3; 2019 c.368 §5]
Note: See note under 138.688.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 2013–2016 · leading case:
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 17× “692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.694. The trial court denied both the motion and the petition.”
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 10× “In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “” ORS 138.694(3). If the court grants a motion for DNA testing, and the testing “produces inconclusive evidence or evidence that is unfavorable to the person requesting the testing,” the court must forward the results to “the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision”…”
State v. Alegre, 388 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 12× “He contends that, because his petition met all of the statutory requirements, appointment of counsel was mandatory under ORS 138.694 (2013), amended by Oregon Laws 2015, chapter 564, section 3.”
State v. Harris, 358 P.3d 313 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“692, denying appointment of counsel under ORS 138.694 or denying a petition for a new trial under ORS 138.”
State v. Mendoza, 386 P.3d 671 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “692, denying appointment of counsel under ORS 138.694 or denying a motion for a new trial under ORS 138.”
State v. Couch, 371 P.3d 1240 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “690 (2011) and ORS 138.694 (2011). 1 Defendant’s motion was denied in 2012, on the ground that he was “not eligible for post-conviction testing” under ORS 138.”
State v. Liston, 374 P.3d 977 (Clackamas Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
· cites it 4× “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.”
State v. Thunderbird, 359 P.3d 392 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“The statutory scheme allows defendants to request appointment of counsel to assist them in pursuing motions for DNA testing, see ORS 138.694, but defendant did not request that.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(1) — 3 cases
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.694. The trial court denied both the motion and the petition.”
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Alegre, 388 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“He contends that, because his petition met all of the statutory requirements, appointment of counsel was mandatory under ORS 138.694 (2013), amended by Oregon Laws 2015, chapter 564, section 3.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.694. The trial court denied both the motion and the petition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(2) — 3 cases
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.694. The trial court denied both the motion and the petition.”
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Alegre, 388 P.3d 1142 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“He contends that, because his petition met all of the statutory requirements, appointment of counsel was mandatory under ORS 138.694 (2013), amended by Oregon Laws 2015, chapter 564, section 3.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(3) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“” ORS 138.694(3). If the court grants a motion for DNA testing, and the testing “produces inconclusive evidence or evidence that is unfavorable to the person requesting the testing,” the court must forward the results to “the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision”…”
State v. Templeton, 364 P.3d 6 (Or. Ct. App. 2015).
“692 and petitioned the trial court for appointed counsel related to the DNA-testing motion under ORS 138.694. The trial court denied both the motion and the petition.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(l)(a) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“” ORS 138.694(3). If the court grants a motion for DNA testing, and the testing “produces inconclusive evidence or evidence that is unfavorable to the person requesting the testing,” the court must forward the results to “the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.”
State v. Johnson, 295 P.3d 677 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“” ORS 138.694(3). If the court grants a motion for DNA testing, and the testing “produces inconclusive evidence or evidence that is unfavorable to the person requesting the testing,” the court must forward the results to “the State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision”…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.694(l)(b)(A) — 1 case
State v. Netzler, 384 P.3d 171 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
“In 2014, defendant, who was incarcerated, filed a petition for appointment of counsel at state expense under ORS 138.694 (2013) to assist him in determining whether to request DNA testing under ORS 138.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.