Sproule v. Coursey, 367 P.3d 946

Petitioner was tried on numerous sex-related charges, convicted on 29 counts, and sentenced to 425 months; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
At a pretrial hearing, defense counsel requested no visible shackles; she suggested a leg brace worn under clothing.
The trial court discussed nonvisible security devices (e.g., a stun belt) with deputies; there was no on-the-record finding that petitioner posed a security risk.
Petitioner wore a leg brace under his pants during trial; the post-conviction court found the brace was not visible to the jury.
In a post-conviction petition, petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object to the leg brace and argued prejudice from an unjustified restraint.
The post-conviction court denied relief; this appeal addresses only the ineffective-assistance claim arising from counsel’s failure to object to the restraint.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sproule)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Was counsel inadequate for failing to object to the courtroom restraint?	Counsel should have objected because no record justified the leg brace.	Counsel was not ineffective; even if restraint was improper, no prejudice.	Even assuming inadequacy, petitioner failed to prove prejudice; relief denied.
Does absence of an on-record security finding create a prima facie ineffective assistance claim?	Showing shackling plus no record justification establishes a prima facie case (relying on Cunningham/Davis).	The petitioner must still prove the restraint was actually unjustified and prejudicial.	Court declined to overrule precedent but required proof of prejudice where restraint was not visible.
Is prejudice presumed from any unjustified restraint?	Any unjustified restraint is presumptively prejudicial; prejudice need not be proven.	Prejudice is not presumed where the restraint was not visible to the jury; must show actual tendency to affect outcome.	Presumption of prejudice applies only when restraints are visible or could not be effectively concealed; not when nonvisible and jury unaware.
Was the restraint prejudicial here?	Leg brace improperly imposed; prejudice follows regardless.	Brace was not visible and evidence of guilt was strong, so any error was harmless.	Post-conviction court reasonably found the jury was unaware of the brace; petitioner failed to prove prejudice.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for federal ineffective-assistance claims)
Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or. 1 (Oregon two-step test for counsel adequacy)
Guinn v. Cupp, 304 Or. 488 (prima facie showing where shackling occurred with no supporting record)
Davis v. Armenakis, 151 Or. App. 66 (presumption of prejudice where visible shackles were used)
Kessler v. State, 57 Or. App. 469 (right to appear free from unnecessary restraints)
State v. Bowen, 340 Or. 487 (no presumed prejudice where stun belt was not visible to jury)
State v. Wall, 252 Or. App. 435 (court must independently assess security risk before imposing restraints)
State v. Bates, 203 Or. App. 245 (harmlessness where jury unaware of nonvisible restraint)