|CALENDAR STATUS: Active|
|Martin Allen Johnson v. Jeff Premo|
|Supreme Court Case 1|
|Kathleen Cegla and Leigh A. Salmon on behalf of Jeff Premo|
Daniel J. Casey and Robert L. Huggins, Jr. on behalf of Martin Allen Johnson
Statement of Issues:
|Martin Allen Johnson v. Jeff Premo (S061670) (A154129) (appeal from Marion County Circuit Court).|
Defendant Jeff Premo, the Superintendent of the Oregon State Penitentiary, has been granted review of a Court of Appeals order that, in essence, ruled that petitioner Martin Allen Johnson, who is represented by appointed counsel on the appeal of his post-conviction relief case, can file a motion in his own name (pro se), based on a showing that he has a good faith and objectively reasonable belief that counsel lacks, or is failing to exercise, the "skills and experience commensurate with the nature of the conviction and complexity of the case, " provided that petitioner includes in the introduction to any such future pro se motion certain information related to that standard.
On review, the issue is:
Do Church v. Gladden, 244 Or 308, 417 P2d 993 (1966), its progeny, or the statutory requirement that "suitable" counsel be provided to indigent post-conviction petitioners, individually or when considered together, require a court to consider pro se motions filed by a petitioner who is represented by appointed counsel?
The foregoing summary of a Supreme Court case that is scheduled for oral argument has been prepared for the benefit of the public. Parties and practitioners should rely on neither the factual summary set out above, nor the statement of issues to be decided, as delineating the questions that the Supreme Court ultimately may consider on review. See generally Oregon Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.20.
Justice(s) NOT Participating: