Maxfield v. Cain

In determining whether the Court can answer the question of prejudice on remand, the Supreme Court has ruled “it is inappropriate to affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment on prejudice grounds” when a court has applied the wrong standard for prejudice. Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 350 P3d 188 (2015).

Petitioner appealed from a judgment by the post conviction court to deny him post conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the post conviction court’s determination to use an inappropriate standard of review in deciding the issue of prejudice in his case. On appeal, Petitioner argued that the court exceeded the scope of remand because it chose to apply an incorrect standard when revisiting a previous issue already decided instead of reviewing the current issue of prejudice. In response, the Superintendent argued that the affidavits Petitioner had as evidence failed to prove Petitioner actually suffered prejudice during the previous remanded case so even if the wrong standard was used it would not change the outcome of Petitioner's case. In determining whether the Court can answer the question of prejudice on remand, the Supreme Court has ruled “it is inappropriate to affirm the post-conviction court’s judgment on prejudice grounds” when a court has applied the wrong standard for prejudice. Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 350 P3d 188 (2015). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that it would be inappropriate for it to decide the question of prejudice because the circumstances in this case were the same as those that were earlier remanded and the post conviction court used the incorrect standard for deciding the issue of prejudice.

Reversed and remanded.