# Shipman v. Gladden

> Oregon Supreme Court · April 30, 1969 · 253 Or. 192

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568825

## Case

- **Full name:** SHIPMAN, Respondent, v. GLADDEN, Appellant
- **Court:** Oregon Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 30, 1969
- **Citations:** 253 Or. 192; 453 P.2d 921; 1969 Ore. LEXIS 444
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Denecke
- **Judges:** Perry, McAllister, Sloan, O'Connell, Goodwin, Denecke, Rodman
- **Cited by:** 64 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568825

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “[t] he failure of counsel to timely file a notice of appeal after he has been requested or agreed to do so is incompetence as a matter of law and a denial of due process” and “[s]ince the state’s criminal process would be found lacking in fundamental fairness if …
- holding that “unless appropriate relief is granted the denial of petitioner’s rights that occurred in this case will render his conviction void” and that “the Post-Conviction Hearing Act authorizes the granting of a delayed appeal when necessary to rectify a substantial denial…
- holding, prior to enactment of ORS 138.071(4)(a), that, based on due process considerations, petitioner was entitled to a delayed criminal appeal where his criminal trial counsel failed to file a timely appeal
- holding, in criminal context, that “failure of counsel to timely file a notice of appeal after he has been requested or agreed to do so is incompetence as a matter of law and a denial of due process”
- holding that the “failure of counsel to timely file a notice of appeal after he has been requested or agreed to do so is incompetence as a matter of law and a denial of due process”

## Opinion text

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I specially concur to state that in my opinion the Due Process Clause can only be invoked when there is *205 state action. The Sixth Amendment is made applicable to the states only through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment provides: “[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” I find the requisite state action present in the instant case. Such action consists of the state continuing to confine the defendant and refusing to grant the defendant an appeal although the defendant timely ordered his attorney to appeal and the statute on appeals was not complied with because of the error of defendant’s counsel. Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1 , 68 S Ct 836 , 92 L Ed 1161 , 3 ALR2d 441 (1948).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9568825. Public record. Not legal advice.