Martin v. Kelly

Claims that trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation requires evidence that counsel's efforts were (1) constitutionally inadequate, and (2) prejudicial. Trujillo v. Maas, 312 Or 431, 435 (1991).

Petitioner appealed a judgment that denied his claims for post-conviction relief.  On appeal, petitioner argued his trial counsel failed to move to suppress evidence seized from his codefendant's parked, unoccupied car, and thus, provided constitutionally inadequate representation.  The superintendent countered that counsel's decision to not file a motion to suppress was reasonable.  Claims that trial counsel failed to provide adequate representation requires evidence that counsel's efforts were (1) constitutionally inadequate, and (2) prejudicial. Trujillo v. Maas, 312 Or 431, 435 (1991).  The Court found counsel's failure to file a motion to suppress was deficient because trial counsel misinterpreted Oregon's search and seizure law and the warrantless seizure of evidence from the codefendant's parked, unoccupied car was improper under Oregon’s automobile exception.   Thus, the Court held that a motion to suppress would have prevailed and the failure to do so may have prejudiced Petitioner since the State could not prove the aggravated identity theft charges absent the evidence seized from the car.  Reversed and remanded for determination of whether trial counsel's inadequacy caused prejudice to petitioner.