Leyva-Grave-De-Peralta v. Blacketter
Decision Date | 16 December 2009 |
Docket Number | CV060733;,A137747. |
Parties | Rodolfo LEYVA-GRAVE-DE-PERALTA, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Sharon BLACKETTER, Superintendent, Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Andrew S. Chilton argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Chilton & Galli, LLC.
Before WOLLHEIM, Presiding Judge, and BREWER, Chief Judge, and DEITS, Senior Judge.
This is a post-conviction case in which the court granted post-conviction relief and ordered that petitioner receive a new trial. The state appeals, arguing that the post-conviction court erred because it granted relief on a ground not pleaded in the petition for post-conviction relief or, alternatively, because petitioner did not prove that trial counsel provided inadequate assistance. Because we agree with the state's first argument, we reverse.
In the underlying criminal case, petitioner was charged with first-degree assault for intentionally stabbing his roommate in the back with a kitchen knife during an argument. The prosecutor requested that, in addition to the instruction for first-degree assault, the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offense of second-degree assault. Petitioner's trial counsel objected, arguing that a conviction for second-degree assault would be inconsistent with the state's theory of the case. The trial court overruled trial counsel's objection and gave the instruction.
During deliberations, the jury informed the court that it was deadlocked nine-to-three on the first-degree assault charge. The presiding juror told the trial judge that "the three are adamant in their position; and the nine are adamant in theirs and that I believe additional conversation will not help us without further instruction from you." With both counsel present, but without consulting them, the trial court told the jury, "We are going to let you proceed to the Assault In the Second Degree and start deliberating on Assault In the Second Degree." Neither the prosecutor nor petitioner's trial counsel objected to that course of action. The jury convicted petitioner of second-degree assault.
Petitioner appealed his conviction, raising two assignments of error. First, petitioner argued, the trial court had erred in entering a conviction for second-degree assault because the state had not charged him with that crime and it was not—at least in these circumstances—a lesser-included offense of first-degree assault. Second, he argued, the trial court had erred in refusing to instruct the jury on fourth-degree assault. This court affirmed petitioner's conviction without opinion and the Supreme Court denied review. State v. Leyva-Grave-De-Peralta, 199 Or.App. 270, 111 P.3d 248, rev. den., 339 Or. 230, 119 P.3d 790 (2005).
(Underscore in original.) In preparing its defense in response to that allegation, the state obtained an affidavit from trial counsel in which he stated that his acquiescence in the improper procedure was a tactical choice. Trial counsel averred:
Petitioner moved for summary judgment in the post-conviction court. In support of his motion, petitioner quoted ORS 136.460, which governs the procedure for jury consideration of lesser-included offenses:
(Emphasis added.) Petitioner argued that the trial court had failed to follow the statutory procedure and that "[t]he failure of defense counsel to object to following the statute on these jury instructions amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel * * *." (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.)
At the hearing on his summary judgment motion, petitioner asserted that trial counsel had performed deficiently because the record of the underlying criminal trial contained no stipulation, as required by ORS 136.460(4). Petitioner also argued, for the first time, that counsel's performance was inadequate because petitioner, personally, should have made the decision whether to allow the jury to consider second-degree assault as a lesser-included offense. Although focusing on the more general argument that trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to the improper procedure, counsel for petitioner also asserted, "Counsel here, we're claiming, was, per se, ineffective because he did not take the time to discuss with his client this option."
In response to the parties' arguments, the post-conviction court initially suggested that it agreed with the state's position that the issue was whether trial counsel had made a tactical decision to go along with the trial judge's instruction to the jury to consider second-degree assault. Ultimately, the post-conviction court concluded that a factual issue existed as to whether trial counsel had exercised reasonable judgment in acquiescing in the procedure, and it denied the motion for summary judgment. Subsequently, in his trial memorandum, petitioner again mentioned (together with his more detailed argument about the lack of a stipulation) that, regarding the decision whether to stipulate to allowing the jury to consider a lesser-included offense after deadlocking on the greater offense, trial counsel was "required to allow the client to make that decision."
Petitioner's post-conviction counsel concluded,
(Emphasis added.) Counsel for the state objected, stating, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hale v. Belleque
...89, 92, 999 P.2d 1159,rev. den.,330 Or. 553, 10 P.3d 943 (2000), or that expand on the claims pleaded. Leyva–Grave–De–Peralta v. Blacketter, 232 Or.App. 441, 448–53, 223 P.3d 411 (2009), rev. den.,348 Or. 114, 228 P.3d 1213 (2010). Preservation principles apply in the context of post-convic......
-
Nichols v. Persson
...92, 999 P.2d 1159, rev. den. , 330 Or. 553, 10 P.3d 943 (2000), or that expand on the claims pleaded. Leyva-Grave-De-Peralta v. Blacketter , 232 Or. App. 441, 448-53, 223 P.3d 411 (2009), rev. den. , 348 Or. 114, 228 P.3d 1213 (2010).").4 GEI is an affirmative defense. ORS 161.305. Under OR......
- Schmidt v. Mt. Angel Abbey
-
Frazier v. State
...of the petition if it requires "different proof and different legal analysis" from the pleaded claim. Leyva-Grave-De-Peralta v. Blacketter , 232 Or. App. 441, 453, 223 P.3d 411 (2009), rev. den. , 348 Or. 114, 228 P.3d 1213 (2010). In this case, petitioner alleged that his trial counsel per......