Woods v. Franke

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 04-27-2017
  • Case #: A153851
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Flynn, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief if they establish a substantial denial of state or federal constitutional rights in proceedings which resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, which renders the conviction void.

Petitioner filed for post conviction relief because he claims his defense counsel failed to provide adequate representation in his criminal trial. Specifically, petitioner alleged that the defense counsel failed to properly respond after a prosecution witness vouched for the credibility of the complaint. Under ORS 138.530(1)(a), a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief if they establish a substantial denial of state or federal constitutional rights in proceedings which resulted in the petitioner’s conviction, which renders the conviction void. When determining if a lawyer’s conduct fell below the constitutional standard, the court must evaluate the lawyer’s conduct from the perspective of the lawyer at the time it occurred without distorting effects or using hindsight. The petitioner failed to prove that defense counsel’s response was not, under the circumstances, within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Affirmed

Advanced Search