- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 06-30-2021
- Case #: A167292
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; Devore, P.J.; & Mooney J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner challenged the legal standard the trial court applied in denying his Church motion to raise additional claims from his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court's focus “on the merits” of the claims rather than “on whether post-conviction counsel exercised reasonable profession skill and judgment.” Defendant, Superintendent, responded that Petitioner’s argument was not preserved in post-conviction proceedings because Petitioner never objected to the court’s handling of his Church motion nor request findings about post-conviction counsel’s exercise of skill and profession judgment.“Preservation principles apply in the context of post-conviction relief and, as a general rule, arguments not made to the post-conviction court in support of a claim will not be considered on appeal.” Hale v. Belleque, 255 Or App 653, 660, 298 P3d 596, adh’d to on recons, 258 Or App 587, 312 P3d 533, rev den, 354 Or 597 (2013). The Court agrees with Superintendent. The only discussion of legal standards in the record did not draw attention to any error the Court might seek to avoid or put Superintendent on notice of Petitioner’s position to make appropriate counter arguments. AFFIRMED.