- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 08-31-2016
- Case #: A159693
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Egan, P.J. for the Court; & Lagesen, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed the postconviction court’s judgment denying postconviction relief on Petitioner’s claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief of a claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel based on its conclusion that Petitioner proved neither the deficient performance element nor the prejudice element of a claim. Petitioner must raise a substantial question of law as to both elements in order to avoid summary affirmance of his conviction. A substantial question of law is a question of law that is important, having solid or firm foundation being soundly based or presenting probable facts or circumstances sufficient to support a reasonable legal hypothesis. The court may summarily affirm a judgment in a postconviction relief action if the court determines no substantial question of law is presented on appeal. Petitioner did not raise any substantial question regarding the postconviction court’s ruling the motion for summary affirmance. Affirmed.