- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 05-12-2021
- Case #: A170318
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner was tried on charges of kidnapping, sex crimes, and coercion. During closing arguments, the prosecution argued that Petitioner was susceptible to dishonesty and domestic violence. Petitioner was found guilty on all charges, thus, Petitioner sought post-conviction relief and alleged that his trial counsel should have objected to the prosecution’s statements. The post-conviction court denied relief. On appeal, Petitioner assigned error to the court’s denial of his post-conviction relief claims. To prevail on a post-conviction claim based on the right to adequate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and as a result, the petitioner suffered prejudice because of counsel’s inadequacy. Delgado-Juarez v. Cain, 307 Or App 83, 475 P3d 883 (2020). The Court held that it was reasonable for Petitioner’s counsel not to object because even if counsel had objected, the court would have instructed the jury to rely on the evidence rather than statements of counsel as the court had already done twice. The court therefore did not perceive counsel’s decision as prejudicial. Affirmed.