Case ID: or-app_109/html/0213-01.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

Argued and submitted December 17, 1990,
    affirmed October 9,
    reconsideration denied November 27, 1991,
    petition for review allowed January 21, 1992 (312 Or 588)
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DAVID F. LLOYD, Appellant.
    
    (10-85-01398; CA A64781)
    818 P2d 982
    Jay Edwards, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
    Robert M. Atkinson, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant appealed his conviction for first degree sodomy, ORS 163.405, and we affirmed. State v. Lloyd, 87 Or App 212, 741 P2d 936 (1987), rev den 305 Or 672 (1988). He then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. He claimed that trial counsel failed to object properly to the testimony of a purported expert witness and that appellate counsel had failed to assign as error the trial court’s admitting that testimony. The post-conviction court found that the evidence was not admissible and was prejudicial and that defendant had been denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. As a remedy, it ordered that he be afforded a “delayed appeal on the evidentiary issues.”

Neither party appealed from that judgment. Instead, defendant filed this delayed direct appeal from his conviction. Because defendant had already had a direct appeal, the only appropriate remedy in the post-conviction proceeding, given the trial court’s findings and conclusions, was to grant him a new trial. If that had been done, the evidentiary questions on which the post-conviction court ruled could have been reviewed on the state’s appeal from that judgment. The only record on this direct appeal is the same as the record on defendant’s first appeal, and defendant may not raise new issues now that could have been raised then.

Affirmed.