Maxfield v. Nooth

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 06-08-2016
  • Case #: A154777
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Flynn, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The standard for determining whether counsel's deficient representation prejudiced a defendant is whether "the deficient performance could have affected the outcome of the case."

Petitioner appealed the denial of his post-conviction petition relief, claiming his trial counsel's performance was not constitutionally adequate because it failed to mention a mitigation case at sentencing. While the trial court did find a deficiency in his counsel, it also held that Petitioner had not proved that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel's deficient performance by a preponderance of the evidence. However, Petitioner argued that the standard used by the lower court was incorrect under Green v Franke, 357 Or 301 (2015). The Court agreed with Petitioner; the proper standard for proving prejudice is whether "the deficient performance could have affected the outcome of the case." Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search