Perkins v. Fhuere

Counsel’s failure to object to the trial court’s enhanced sentences based on “judicially-found facts, instead of jury-found facts as required under Appendi v. New Jersey * * * entitle[s] [petitioner] to a new sentencing proceeding pertaining to those counts.”

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying relief from his convictions, arguing that his trial counsel provided inadequate and ineffective assistance in violation of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. To prevail on a claim of inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel under the state constitution, a post-conviction petitioner must prove that trial counsel “failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment,” and that counsel’s failure “had a tendency to affect” the result of the trial. Under the federal standard, a petitioner must prove that “trial counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,’” and that “there was a ‘reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” The Court found that counsel's choice not to object to certain testimony was a strategic move to question the witness's credibility. The Court reasoned that this decision was reasonable and not indicative of ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. The Court found merit in the claim about enhanced sentences under Oregon law. It reasoned that counsel failed to recognize the jury's role in making necessary factual findings before applying them, indicating a significant lapse in professional judgment. The Court held that the court erred in denying relief on this claim and remanded the case for entry of judgment granting relief on the sentencing issue while affirming the remainder of the post-conviction court’s findings.