446 P.3d 542
Or.2019Background
- Defendant (Langley) sought reconsideration of this court's decision in State v. Langley, 363 Or. 482, 424 P.3d 688 (2018) (Langley IV), which affirmed his death sentence, and moved for remand for an evidentiary hearing.
- Defendant challenged factual descriptions in Langley IV about how Judge Mary Mertens James came to preside over the resentencing after this court’s earlier remand in State v. Langley, 351 Or. 652, 273 P.3d 901 (2012) (Langley III).
- Three specific factual statements in Langley IV were contested: (1) that Presiding Judge Jamese Rhoades "filed" a Criminal Assignment Notice assigning Judge James, (2) that a conversation between Judges James and Rhoades occurred "as part of the case assignment process," and (3) the precise dating of when defense counsel filed motions to remove Judge James (time-stamped April 27, 2012).
- The court agreed parts of those descriptions were inaccurate and modified Langley IV to (a) state the Marion County Circuit Court generated the Criminal Assignment Notice assigning Judge James, (b) remove the language implying the conversation occurred during the assignment process, and (c) clarify that motions filed by new defense counsel contain clerk time stamps dated April 27, 2012.
- The court rejected defendant’s broader arguments that those inaccuracies materially affected the appellate analysis or rose to constitutional error and denied the motion to remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy of assignment-source fact | Court treated record as showing the Presiding Judge filed the assignment notice | Assignment notice was generated by the court; record does not show Rhoades personally filed it | Modify opinion to state the court generated the notice assigning Judge James |
| Characterization of judges’ conversation | Conversation was described as occurring "as part of the case assignment process" | Record shows the conversation occurred after assignment, not during the assignment process | Disavow the "case assignment process" language and modify opinion |
| Timing of defense motions to remove Judge James | Opinion said counsel learned assignment April 23 and filed motions on April 27 | Evidence (affidavit of service) suggests motions were filed earlier; clerk time stamp may reflect processing delay | Modify wording to note motions contain clerk time stamps dated April 27, 2012 (no remand) |
| Need for evidentiary remand | No remand necessary; factual record sufficient | Disputed factual issues warrant evidentiary hearing on multiple claims (judicial bias, ex parte, new trial, instructions, proportionality, discovery) | Deny motion for remand; conclude no evidentiary hearing required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Langley, 363 Or. 482, 424 P.3d 688 (Or. 2018) (opinion under reconsideration affirming death sentence)
- State v. Langley, 351 Or. 652, 273 P.3d 901 (Or. 2012) (prior remand that prompted reassignment for resentencing)