Evans v. Nooth

Claims of inadequate counsel are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, subject to the judge’s discretion, regarding the reasonableness of the counselor’s representation from the counselor’s “perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365, 381, 106 S Ct 2574 (1986). Some evidence of the “broader objectives of [the] litigation” is required to perform this assessment. Evans, at 338.

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s rejection of his contention that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. On appeal, Petitioner argued that because his appellate counsel was “constitutionally inadequate” the trial court should have found in his favor as a matter of law. Evans v. Nooth, 300 Or App 331, 334 (2019). In response, Respondent argued that his representation of Petitioner was both constitutionally adequate and effective. Claims of inadequate counsel are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, subject to the judge’s discretion, regarding the reasonableness of the counselor’s representation from the counselor’s “perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of all the circumstances.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 US 365, 381, 106 S Ct 2574 (1986). Some evidence of the “broader objectives of [the] litigation” is required to perform this assessment. Evans, at 338. The Court held that, because Petitioner did not present any evidence of the objectives of the litigation, his argument failed. Affirmed.