Cox v. Premo

"When a petitioner seeks to establish that counsel failed to exercise reasonable skill and judgment, what constitutes adequate performance is fact-specific and dependent on the 'nature and complexity of the case.'" Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 255, 406 P3d 1074 (2017) (quoting Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 701, 399 P3d 431 (2017)).

Petitioner appealed a judgment by the post-conviction court.  Petitioner assigned error to the court's finding that failure to investigate a witness' conspiracy assertion by petitioner's defense counsel did not rise to the level of constitutionally inadequate and ineffective counsel.  Petitioner argued that his defense counsel failed to obtain and supervise qualified investigators, and failed to locate witnesses who could have impeached the prosecution's theory.  The state argued that petitioner could not establish a basis for relief without proof of counsel actually affecting the trial as a result of the failure, and advanced reasons why the defense counsel might choose not to  call witnesses.  "When a petitioner seeks to establish that counsel failed to exercise reasonable skill and judgment, what constitutes adequate performance is fact-specific and dependent on the 'nature and complexity of the case.'" Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 255, 406 P3d 1074 (2017) (quoting Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 701, 399 P3d 431 (2017)).  The Court held that the post-conviction court erred because there were clear inadequacies in the defense counsel's representation based on the specific facts of the case.  Reversed and remanded with instructions for post-conviction court to grant relief on aggravated murder conviction; otherwise affirmed.