Vanecek v. Angelozzi

The petitioner has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation by exercising professional skill and judgment and that the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result.

Jim Joseph Vanecek brought this suit seeking post-conviction relief for inadequate representation during criminal trial. Vanecek was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse, second-degree unlawful penetration of victim, and acquitted of two other charges. Vanecek claims that adequate counsel would have objected to the evidence that Vanecek had looked at pornography, evidence of alleged sexual conduct with victim’s schoolmate, and evidence of being convicted of contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor by having sex with a minor. The Court stated that under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, the petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that his or her counsel provided inadequate representation. Vanecek failed to prove that the admitted evidence was not relevant, lacked legal merit, or that the trial court relied on the admitted evidence in reaching its verdict. Therefore, Vanecek failed to prove inadequate representation of any prejudicial effect. Affirmed.