Case ID: or-app_73/html/0568-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Submitted on record and briefs April 3,
    reversed and remanded May 15, 1985
    JOHN DALTON NEWKIRK, Appellant, v. STATE OF OREGON, Respondent.
    
    (82-4649-J-1; CA A31136)
    699 P2d 677
    John D. Newkirk, Medford, filed the brief pro se for appellant.
    Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, James E. Mountain, Jr., Solicitor General, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, filed the brief for respondent.
    Before Gillette, Presiding Judge, and Van Hoomissen and Young, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

In this post-conviction relief case, petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition on the ground that his theory for relief — inadequate assistance of counsel — had been assigned as error and decided adversely to him on his direct appeal. See State v. Newkirk, 57 Or App 428, 646 P2d 1380, rev den 293 Or 394 (1984) (affirmed without opinion). The trial court erred in so concluding; this court normally does not decide such issues on direct appeal. See, e.g., State v. Bateman, 48 Or App 357, 365, 616 P2d 1206 (1980). Had we departed from our normal practice on petitioner’s direct appeal, we would have said so by opinion. It follows that petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief must be reinstated.

Reversed and remanded.