Sullivan v. Popoff, 360 P.3d 625

Petitioner was convicted of first-degree assault after a bar fight with Caudillo and received a 90-month sentence.
Petitioner testified that Caudillo attacked first; the defense argued self-defense and uncertain start of the altercation.
Collingham, the responding officer, testified that the bouncer called petitioner the aggressor; petitioner’s counsel did not object to this hearsay.
Britt and Stephens witnessed parts of the fight; their testimony supported that the start of the fight was not clearly established.
Petitioner challenged trial counsel’s failure to object to Collingham’s testimony as inadmissible hearsay under OEC 801/802 and ineffective assistance.
The post-conviction court denied relief, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the decision not to object fell within reasonable professional judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s failure to object to hearsay was reasonable.	Petitioner argues counsel’s failure was unreasonable and prejudicial.	Trial counsel reasonably chose not to object to avoid highlighting the statement and to pursue a cross-examination strategy.	No; decision fell within reasonable professional judgment.
Whether the alleged hearsay prejudice requires relief.	Petitioner asserts prejudice from admission of aggressor statement.	Hearsay objection would be unlikely to change outcome given other evidence.	Not reached; prejudice analysis reserved after performance confirmed.

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654 (2015) (state and federal standards for ineffective assistance aligned; prejudice required for relief)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (reasonable-llawyer standard; prejudice required)
Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1 (2014) (adequate assistance is functionally equivalent under Oregon and federal standards)
State v. Goodwin, 136 Or App 356 (1995) (limits of impeachment evidence vs. substantive use)