Opinion ID: 3033659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State Court Trial

Text: In December 1994, during the course of a robbery, Kevin Washington (“Washington”) murdered James Loupe (“Loupe”) in the presence of Loupe’s children. Washington was found guilty of two counts of aggravated murder, first degree robbery, first degree burglary, and second degree assault. Before the sentencing phase of trial, the State and Washington negotiated an agreement stipulating to a sentence of “life imprisonment with the possibility of parole under ORS 163.105(1)(c) and 36 months to run consecutively.” The stipulation further stated: 12306 WASHINGTON v. LAMPERT Having been fully informed by his attorneys of the sentencing options available in this case and having been fully informed of possible legal and constitutional challenges to both the jury verdict and the possible sentences, the defendant specifically waives any legal or constitutional objections to pretrial proceedings, rulings by the court, his trial, the jury verdict, his conviction, and to the sentence he will receive based on this stipulation. This waiver is intended to eliminate the possibility of any future litigation regarding the defendant’s pretrial motions, his trial, conviction, entry into this agreement, or sentencing. It includes all existing or future claims, known or unknown, and all types of judicial or other review, including but not limited to all claims for post-conviction relief or federal habeas corpus relief. The stipulation also stated that “[t]he defendant expressly acknowledges and agrees that he is fully and completely satisfied with the advice and representation he has received from his attorneys.” The trial court explained the terms of the stipulation to Washington, stating: Last Thursday the jury found you guilty of various things. As you know, the next step is to determine the sentence. And the Aggravated Murder, the jury determines the sentence, okay, and their choices are . . . the death penalty, life without parole, called true life, and life with the possibility of parole after 30 years, but you can request it, you can start requesting parole after 20, and they can turn you down, okay? It also explained that, in return for Washington’s waiver, “the state is agreeing not to seek . . . the death sentence or the life WASHINGTON v. LAMPERT 12307 without the possibility of parole.” The court then engaged Washington in the following exchange: Court: And I guess what I want to know from you is you understand what that is, what you’re doing there? Defendant: Yes. Court: Okay, why don’t you repeat to me what you’re doing. . . . Defendant: If I sign this, by signing this agreement I give up my rights for all appeals. Court: All appeals. And what we call post- conviction. Defendant: Yeah, post-conviction. Court: Post-conviction, you can go and say my attorney didn’t do a good job for me, they were a bunch of clucks, et cetera. You also give up the right to that. You understand? Defendant: Uh-huh. The court then questioned Washington about whether he was satisfied with the representation provided by his attorneys Gareld Gedrose and Ed Jones: Court: Now, you’ve — Mr. Gedrose and Mr. Jones have been representing you from the very — from the beginning here. Any complaints? Defendant: No. 12308 WASHINGTON v. LAMPERT Court: I mean, obviously they didn’t win, that’s a complaint, but any other things that they could have done that you felt they should have done or anything like that? Defendant: No. Pursuant to the stipulation, the trial court sentenced Washington to a term of life with the possibility of parole, with the minimum sentence set at 30 years, as well as a term of 36 months imprisonment, to be served consecutively. Washington did not file a direct appeal.