Boswell v. State of Oregon

To demonstrate inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, Petitioner must prove (1) that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and (2) that Petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017).

Petitioner appealed 11 convictions relating to stolen vehicle offenses. Petitioner argued same issues addressed in post-conviction and found unpersuasive by the court that concluded petitioner failed to prove constitutionally deficient representation. Petitioner argued counsel should have offered evidence to further impeach "the state’s star witness” and “objected to the trial court’s purported application of an incorrect mental state.” To demonstrate inadequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution, Petitioner must prove (1) that trial counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment and (2) that Petitioner suffered prejudice as a result. Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017). The court concluded that “petitioner’s trial counsel did not fail to exercise reasonable skill and judgment in not introducing additional evidence” because the court was “not persuaded that additional evidence of bias would have tended to affect the outcome of the case.”  The court further concluded that, while it may have been best practice for counsel to confirm that the trial court applied the correct mental state, “neither the state nor federal constitution requires best practice” and the record did not “reveal[] a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.” The petitioner’s claim failed both “the performance and prejudice prongs” of Johnson, thus, the Court held that Petitioner did not receive constitutionally deficient representation. Affirmed.