Fisher v. Angelozzi

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 05-17-2017
  • Case #: A154576
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Ortega, J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

"There are three components to a true Brady violation…the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused… evidence must have been suppressed by the state…and prejudice must have ensued." Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-282, 119 S Ct 1936, 144 L Ed 2d 286 (1999).

Petitioner raised three arguments upon appealing the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned three errors to the post-conviction court’s decision; the most pertinent being that his constitutional right to due process was violated per Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, 83 S Ct 1194, 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963). On appeal, Petitioner claimed that the state possessed an exculpatory police report but failed to disclose it prior to Petitioner confessing was a Brady violation. In response, the state contended that (1) Petitioner was procedurally barred from a Brady claim and (2) Petitioner and his counsel were aware of the potentially indemnifying arrest, and therefore counsel reasonably should have investigated it and raised the issue at trial. Criminal prosecutors are constitutionally obligated to disclose “evidence…favorable to the defense and material to guilt…” Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83, (1963). "There are three components to a true Brady violation…the evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused… evidence must have been suppressed by the state…and prejudice must have ensued." Strickler v. Greene, 527 US 263, 281-282 (1999). The Court concluded that “prosecutorial misconduct” is not the only basis for a Brady violation, and thus, the court committed legal error. Reversed and remanded on the Brady claim and claim of ineffective counsel; otherwise affirmed.

Advanced Search