Ogle v. Nooth
330 P.3d 572
| Or. | 2014Background
- Petitioner was convicted (second-degree assault, meth possession, endangering a minor) and sentenced; he filed a pro se PCHA petition and later an amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel in four respects.
- Attached to the petition were the indictment, judgment, trial transcript, and later two affidavits from petitioner (Exhibits 4 and 5) describing police reports, medical-record issues, and proposed witness testimony/questions.
- The State moved to dismiss under ORS 138.580 (failure to attach supporting documentary evidence) and ORCP 21 A(8); it argued petitioner needed affidavits or records addressing each claim (e.g., Parker’s affidavit, victim’s medical records, doctor’s answers).
- The post-conviction court granted dismissal for insufficient attachments; the Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner’s materials met ORS 138.580.
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it held attachments must address each element of each asserted ground and, if true and admissible at hearing, permit relief, but attachments need not meet a heightened reliability or admissibility standard.
- Applying that standard, the Court held petitioner met the attachment requirement for the first claim (failure to prepare witness Parker) but not for the second–fourth claims (medical records and cross-examination of treating physician); the case was remanded for further proceedings on claim one.
Issues
| Issue | Ogle's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of ORS 138.580 attachment requirement — what substantive content required | Attachments need only "some support" for allegations to allow discovery and a hearing | Attachments must supply prima facie evidence addressing each element of each claim so court could rule for petitioner | Attachments must address each element of each asserted ground and, if true and admissible at hearing, permit a court to rule for petitioner (i.e., substantively sufficient, though not proof at pleading stage) |
| Reliability/admissibility required of attachments | Any affidavit, record, or document that supports allegations is permissible, including petitioner’s own averments | Attachments must be "highly reliable and trustworthy," not speculative petitioner affidavits | Attachments need not meet heightened reliability or admissibility standards; petitioner must certify attachments as true but materials may include petitioner’s averments and other documentary evidence |
| Application to witness-preparation claim (Parker) — were petitioner’s affidavits sufficient? | Petitioner’s affidavits describing police report and how Parker would have testified suffice to support the claim and warrant an evidentiary hearing | State argued petitioner needed Parker’s own affidavit stating how her testimony would differ | Held for petitioner: attachments sufficient for claim one; dismissal of that claim was error and an evidentiary hearing is required |
| Application to medical-records and cross-examination claims — were attachments sufficient? | Petitioner argued his averments about records and cross-examination supported prejudice | State argued petitioner had to attach the medical records or admissible proof showing prejudice | Held for State: attached transcript and petitioner affidavits, read together, did not support these claims under ORS 138.580; dismissal of claims two–four was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ogle v. Nooth, 254 Or. App. 665 (Court of Appeals 2013) (appeal that initially found attachments sufficient)
- Ware v. Hall, 342 Or. 444 (2007) (procedural framework for hearings and dismissal of PCHA petitions)
- Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or. 431 (1991) (elements of ineffective-assistance claim under Oregon Constitution)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (federal ineffective-assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. 1 (2014) (discussion of standards for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Stevens v. State, 322 Or. 101 (1995) (scope of reasonably necessary investigation and prejudice standard)
- Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc., 355 Or. 319 (2014) (consideration of affidavits together with other evidence)
- Young v. Hill, 347 Or. 165 (2009) (interpretation of ORS 138.525 and appeals from PCHA dismissals)