Case Name: MERVIN BARTEAUX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2012-09-12
Citations: 252 Or. App. 313
Docket Number: CV081141; A145272
Parties: MERVIN BARTEAUX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 252
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
On respondent’s petition for reconsideration filed July 25,
reconsideration allowed; former opinion (250 Or App 767, 281 P3d 661) clarified and adhered to as clarified September 12, 2012
MERVIN BARTEAUX, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Don MILLS, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.
Umatilla County Circuit Court
CV081141; A145272
286 P3d 1243
Mary H. Williams, Deputy Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, for petition.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Haselton, Chief Judge, and Duncan, Judge.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant has petitioned us to reconsider our decision that reversed and remanded the post-conviction judgment in this case, seeking, among other things, clarification of the tasks for the parties and the post-conviction court on remand. We allow the petition to provide the requested clarification.
In assessing a claim that trial counsel in petitioner's criminal case provided inadequate legal assistance, the post-conviction court proceded from what has now been confirmed in Lafler v. Cooper,_US_, 132 S Ct 1376, 182 L Ed 2d 398 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye,_US_, 132 S Ct 1399, 182 L Ed 2d 379 (2012), to have been a false first premise. Accordingly, as defendant posits in his reconsideration petition, the "court intends for the parties and the post-conviction court to simply start over (i.e., to consider anew both the deficient-performance question and the prejudice question), now that Frye and Lafler" have been decided.
Reconsideration allowed; former opinion clarified and adhered to as clarified.