Brumwell v. Premo

"Under Article I, section 11, '[t]o demonstrate that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's inadequacy.'" Sparks v. Premo, 289 Or App 159, 169, 408 P3d 276 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119, cert den, ___ US ___, 139 S Ct 569 (2018).

Petitioner appealed a denial of post-conviction relief.  Petitioner assigned error to the trial court's conclusion that Petitioner's counsel offered adequate assistance.  On appeal, Petitioner argued (1) that he did not receive effective counsel because his counsel failed to perform a "reasonable, independent investigation of the prosecution's blood spatter evidence," (2) counsel failed to investigate the Prosecution's informant's motive to lie, and (3) that his counsel failed to investigate the "standing jigs" defense.  In response, the Superintendent argued (1) the post-conviction court was correct in rejecting Petitioner's claim because there was no evidence that the forensic scientist who testified would have changed her opinion after further investigation, (2) all of Petitioner's claims about the Prosecution's informant were based on inadmissible hearsay that lacked proper foundation, and (3) Petitioner personally insisted that his counsel utilize a contrary defense.  "Under Article I, section 11, '[t]o demonstrate that he is entitled to post-conviction relief, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's inadequacy.'" Sparks v. Premo, 289 Or App 159, 169, 408 P3d 276 (2017), rev den, 363 Or 119, cert den, ___ US ___, 139 S Ct 569 (2018).The Court concluded (1) Petitioner did not show that he was prejudiced by his counsel's failure to investigate the blood spatter, (2) Petitioner's counsel actually did question the Prosecution's informant's credibility, and (3) Petitioner chose the defense theory used, obviating the "standing jigs" defense argument. 

Affirmed.