- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 03-20-2019
- Case #: A161060
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & DeHoog, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner sought post-conviction relief from her sentence and some of her previous convictions related to various theft offenses. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court’s rejection of each of the three claims of trial counsel inadequacy. On appeal, Petitioner argued that her rights under Article 1, Section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, were violated because Petitioner’s counsel was inadequate in investigating the harm caused by Petitioner’s theft, not making proper objections, and for allowing Petitioner to plea for counts that had fallen outside of the statute of limitations. "To establish . . . inadequate assistance for purposes of Article I, section 11, petitioner [is] required to prove . . . that trial counsel 'failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment’; and . . . that 'petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel’s inadequacy.’” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017). The Court held that the counsel’s failure to object and move to dismiss charges due to statute of limitations would most likely have failed and was not prejudice toward Petitioner. However, the Court held that the trial attorney did not perform reasonable professional skill and judgment when trial counsel failed to investigate the State’s claim that Petitioner’s theft was the cause of IP Koke’s failed business and was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to investigate the several causes of the business failure.
Reversed and remanded on inadequate assistance of counsel for the failure of investigation and for not objecting to the imposition of restitution; otherwise affirmed.