- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 04-19-2017
- Case #: A157225
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Wollheim, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed the post-conviction court’s denial of relief. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court’s determination that his trial counsel’s failure to call a witness under subpoena did not violate his constitutional rights to adequate and effective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Petitioner argued the post-conviction court’s denial of relief violated his Article I, Section 11, right to effective assistance of counsel. Under ORS 138.620(2), “to obtain post-conviction relief on the ground that his lawyer’s performance did not comport with Article I, section 11, standards, [a] petitioner [is] required to prove facts showing (1) that his counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and (2) that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.” In applying the first prong of its analysis, the court concluded that “a lawyer exercising reasonable professional skill and judgment, knowing what counsel knew at the time, would have called [the witness] to testify at petitioner’s trial.” Applying the second prong, the court concluded that “[b]ecause the omission of [the witness’s] testimony diminished the likelihood of the jury crediting petitioner’s version of events . . . petitioner was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s decision not to call Smith to testify at his criminal trial.” Reversed and remanded.