- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 03-01-2017
- Case #: A152333
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, C.J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed from a post-conviction court’s judgment which denied him relief. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s grant of the Superintendent’s motion for partial summary judgment on that claim. On appeal, Petitioner alleged his trial attorney provided inadequate assistance of counsel for failure to object to Petitioner’s diagnosis of sexual abuse in the absence of physical corroborating evidence. Under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the test for determining whether a petitioner has been denied adequate assistance of counsel is two-pronged: First, the petitioner must show that his or her counsel performed inadequately. Second, the petitioner must demonstrate that he or she was prejudiced because of counsel’s error. Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 661-62, 342 P3d 70 (2015); Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668, 686 (1984). The Court concluded that Petitioner failed in providing sufficient evidence that they were prejudiced by the counsel’s failure to object. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Petitioner failed to show that there was a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s acts, the result would have been different. Therefore, the Court held that the trial court did not error in granting Superintendent’s motion for partial summary judgment. Affirmed.