- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 11-13-2014
- Case #: A149496
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, P. J. for the Court; Ortega, J.; & Garrett, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed a judgment that denied post-conviction relief under ORS 138.530(1)(a). On appeal, Petitioner contended that his defense attorney failed to renew his objection to the evidence at trial, and as a result, his attorney did not provide adequate assistance of counsel, which violated his constitutional rights. The Court held the post-conviction court did not err. The Court reasoned that, based on the facts of the case, petitioner’s defense attorney was not constitutionally inadequate or ineffective because he did not renew a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence at trial. See Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 875, 17 627 P2d 458 (1981) ("if counsel exercises reasonable professional skill and judgment, a reviewing court will not second-guess the lawyer in the name of the constitution * * *."). Therefore, Petitioner was not denied constitutionally adequate assistance of counsel. Affirmed.