Sullivan v. Popoff

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 10-07-2015
  • Case #: A152080
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: De Muniz, S.J. for the Court; Lagesen, P.J.; & Flynn, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

An attorney's decision not to raise certain objections does not automatically call into question the reasonable professional skill and judgment of defense counsel under the Oregon Post-Conviction Relief Act.

The petitioner sought post-conviction relief based on the grounds that his criminal defense counsel did not "comport with the standard for performance" under Article 1, section 11 of the Sixth Amendment. The post-conviction court held that the petitioner failed to claim the performance element when he argued that his counsel failed to raise a hearsay objection to specific testimony reflected absence of reasonable professional skill and judgment. The Court held that the counsel acted reasonably in deciding not to raise the hearsay objection to the testimony in question. Affirmed.

Advanced Search