Montez v. Czerniak

2014 Ore. LEXIS 444 · Oregon Supreme Court · Jun 12, 2014

Full text

MARCO ANTONIO MONTEZ, on Review v. Stanley CZERNIAK, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, on Review

PER CURIAM Petitioner seeks reconsideration of this court’s decision in Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or 1, 322 P3d 487 (2014), a post-conviction relief case in which we affirmed both the Court of Appeals decision and the post-conviction judgment below. In seeking reconsideration, petitioner takes exception to our holding as to the disclosure of petitioner’s previous death sentence at his penalty phase retrial, as well as various aspects of our analysis regarding omitted expert mitigation evidence. With regard to those arguments, we affirm our previous decision without further discussion. Petitioner has correctly noted, however, that our opinion misidentified Kenneth McPhail as an inmate witness who testified on petitioner’s behalf at the Multnomah County Circuit Court. See Montez v. Czerniak, 355 Or at 29 n 8 (“Eight inmates testified for petitioner and all did so at the penitentiary except for Kenneth McPhail, whose testimony was taken at the Multnomah County Circuit Court.”) That identification was incorrect; the record shows that the inmate who testified in Multnomah County Circuit Court was, in fact, Michael McDonnell. Accordingly, we allow this petition for reconsideration and modify our decision to correct that error. The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.

Parentheticals

holding that “counsel acted reasonably in relying upon qualified experts” in deciding not to order additional testing regarding petitioner’s claims of brain damage in investiga- tion for mitigating evidence
Enyart v. Fhuere
recognizing that "the standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effectiveness of counsel under the federal constitution"
Molette v. Nooth
recognizing that the standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effec- tiveness of counsel under the federal constitution
Nelson v. Cain
stating that the state and federal standards are “function- ally equivalent”
Delgado-Juarez v. Cain
discussing significance of the petitioner’s choice to present evidence that he had previously been lodged on death row
Holcomb v. Taylor
noting the “standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are functionally equivalent to those for determining the effec- tiveness of counsel under the federal constitution”
Edblom v. Cain
“Even assuming that counsel’s choices * * * were not, in hindsight, the best choices, that is not the test.”
Boswell v. State of Oregon
“[T]he standards for determining the adequacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are function- ally equivalent to those for determining the effectiveness of counsel under the federal constitution.”
Wolfgang v. Pedro
“Other lawyers might disagree with that strategic choice, but the choice itself was made with appropriate consideration of the risks and benefits, and we cannot say that it was unreasonable.”
Bray v. Reyes
to prevail on a claim for inad- equate assistance of counsel, a petitioner must prove both that his counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient 588 Blain v. Cain and that he suffered prejudice as a result
Blain v. Cain
“[T]he standards for determining the ade- quacy of legal counsel under the state constitution are func- tionally equivalent to those for determining the effective- ness of counsel under the federal constitution.”
Wolfgang v. Pedro
childhood abuse and drug and alcohol use in capital case
State v. Gonzalez