purpose behind constitutional requirement of due process is to prevent a conviction by methods that are inconsistent with the American theory of fair play
How later courts described this case
- purpose behind constitutional requirement of due process is to prevent a conviction by methods that are inconsistent with the American theory of fair play
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SLOAN, J.,
concurring.
Plaintiff’s petition alleges facts which, if true, would establish that he was convicted upon a plea *347 of guilty without advice of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment. It seems to me that the essential issue in the case is to decide if the Post Conviction Hearing Act, OES 138.510 et seq., has afforded the petitioner an adequate forum in which to test his claims. Case v. Nebraska, 1965, 381 US 336 , 85 S Ct 1486 , 14 L Ed2d 422; Townsend v. Sain, 1963, 372 US 293 , 83 S Ct 745 , 9 L Ed2d 770; Fay v. Noia, 1963, 372 US 391 , 83 S Ct 822 , 9 L Ed2d 837, and other cases cited in these decisions require that:
“The [state] procedure should be swift and simple and easily invoked. It should be sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all federal constitutional claims. In light of Fay v. Noia, supra, it should eschew rigid and technical doctrines of forfeiture, waiver, or default. See Douglas v. Alabama, 380 US 415, 422-423 , 13 L Ed2d 934, —, —, 85 S Ct 1074 ; Henry v. Mississippi, supra. It should provide for full fact hearings to resolve disputed factual issues, and for compilation of a record to enable federal courts to determine the sufficiency of those hearings. Townsend v. Sain, supra. It should provide for decisions supported by opinions, or fact findings and conclusions of law, which disclose the grounds of decision and the resolution of disputed facts. Provision for counsel to represent prisoners, as in § 4 of the Nebraska Act, would enhance the probability of effective presentation and a proper disposition of prisoners’ claims.” Case v. Nebraska, supra, 14 L Ed2d 429.
Although the above is taken from a concurring opinion it fairly summarizes the prior decisions. The Oregon Act satisfies each of those requirements.
In the instant post conviction proceeding petitioner was afforded a full dress hearing, assisted by counsel, with an opportunity to present all of the evidence he desired and a brief in support of his contentions. The *348 trial court, after considering the case, made specific findings and conclusions. No deficiency in applying the Supreme Court prescribed standards can be found.
It should then be our function to decide if the evidence reasonably supports the trial court’s findings. In this instance it does. Particularly, when the prime problem considered by the trial court was to test the truth of the testimony. We should view the findings as the verdict of a jury and if supported, the findings should be affirmed. It is not our function to review the evidence unless it appears that the trial court has misapplied the law in respect to his consideration of the evidence. OES 138.650. I would affirm the trial court on this basis.
Goodwin, J., joins in this opinion.