Frazier v. State of Oregon

“The court’s ‘authority to grant relief is not entirely constrained by the precise manner in which a petitioner alleges a claim for relief’ as it extends ‘to matters within the scope of the pleaded claims.’” Ogle v. Nooth, 292 Or App 387, 388, 424 P3d 759 (2018).

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying post-conviction relief for convictions of fourth-degree assault and second-degree strangulation.  Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court's finding that although Petitioner's trial counsel performed inadequately, the failure did not prejudice Petitioner. On appeal, Petitioner argued that, in his petition for post-conviction relief, his “courtesy citation” did not limit his argument to a specific page of the trial transcript, but rather was a general allegation to counsel’s failure to object, move to strike, or request a limiting instruction after the victim testified about “prior abuse” committed by Petitioner. In response, the State cross-assigned error to the post-conviction court's conclusion that trial counsel performed deficiently.  “The court’s ‘authority to grant relief is not entirely constrained by the precise manner in which a petitioner alleges a claim for relief’ as it extends ‘to matters within the scope of the pleaded claims.’” Ogle v. Nooth, 292 Or App 387, 388, 424 P3d 759 (2018). The Court found that Petitioner satisfied his burden of proof because testimony regarding Petitioner's prior acts of abusive behavior toward the victim would have tended to affect the outcome. Thus, the Court held that the post-conviction court did not err in concluding Petitioner's counsel performed deficiently, but it did err in concluding that the deficiency did not prejudice Petitioner. Reversed.