The opinion
*455 WARREN, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the majority’s reasoning and its conclusion that defendant is entitled to a post-conviction hearing. That is the only question we were asked to decide and that should conclude our discussion. The reference to State v. Grenvik, 291 Or 99 , 628 P2d 1195 (1981), and State v. Wright, 63 Or App 482 , 664 P2d 1131 (1983), regarding the substantive issues petitioner may raise in the post-conviction hearing is unnecessary to our decision.