Pike v. Cain

“[T]he issue was the constitutional adequacy of counsel’s investigation to support his strategy choice at the petitioner’s sentencing, at which the state would urge the court to sentence the petitioner as a dangerous offender.” See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 258 (2017).

Following a guilty plea to second-degree assault, Pike sought post-conviction relief.  On appeal, Pike argued that the post-conviction court erred in ruling his trial counsel was not inadequate for failing to present evidence of his prior military service.  Pike argued that OAR 213-008-0002(1)(a)(J)1 provides servicemember status as a “substantial and compelling reason” for downward departure from the presumptive 70 month Measure 11 sentencing and therefore his trial counsel did not meet the required constitutional standards.  In response, the superintendent argued that trial counsel’s strategy was reasonable and Pike failed to prove prejudice.  “[T]he issue was the constitutional adequacy of counsel’s investigation to support his strategy choice at the petitioner’s sentencing, at which the state would urge the court to sentence the petitioner as a dangerous offender.” See Richardson v. Belleque, 362 Or 236, 258 (2017).  Under Richardson, the Court held that trial counsel’s decision not to investigate fully Pike’s military history was not the result of “reasonable professional skill and judgment” because the stakes were high, petitioner wished to remain in the army, and counsel’s stated reason for not investigating was inconsistent with his sentencing strategy.  Pike was prejudiced because there is more than a mere possibility that such information would have changed the outcome of the sentencing.  Reversed and remanded.