Case Name: DONALD MUELLER, Appellant, v. Bob BENNING, Superintendent, Oregon State Hospital, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-02-24
Citations: 118 Or. App. 355
Docket Number: 87-C-12088; CA A62309
Parties: DONALD MUELLER, Appellant, v. Bob BENNING, Superintendent, Oregon State Hospital, Respondent.
Judges: Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 118
Pages: 355–356

Head Matter:
Submitted on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court January 8,
affirmed February 24,
reconsideration denied May 12,
petition for review denied June 22, 1993 (317 Or 162)
DONALD MUELLER, Appellant, v. Bob BENNING, Superintendent, Oregon State Hospital, Respondent.
(87-C-12088; CA A62309)
847 P2d 876
John E. Storkel, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Keith W. Wingfield, 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 Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
This case is on remand from the Supreme Court. 314 Or 615, 841 P2d 640 (1992). We had affirmed the trial court's dismissal of petitioner's petition, because we concluded that the claim was for habeas corpus, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction over that claim. The Supreme Court reversed, saying that petitioner's claim that he was denied effective assistance of counsel falls within the statutory grounds for post-conviction relief and that we should consider it. 314 Or at 621.
Petitioner claims that his trial counsel was inadequate in failing to investigate the circumstances surrounding the crime, in failing to advise him of the nature and consequences of entering a plea of guilty except for insanity and in discussing other alternatives with him, in advising him that he would not receive a long sentence if he pled guilty, and in advising him to waive trial by jury. He argues that he proved the allegations of the replication by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence supports the post-conviction court's findings to the contrary.
Affirmed.