Allen v. Miller

Summary

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief to Marcellus Ramon Allen after his murder conviction at a second trial. The court held that trial counsel performed deficiently by making an opening-statement claim about phone records without verifying the records, but that Allen failed to establish prejudice in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court also concluded that counsel was not constitutionally deficient for failing to preserve a propensity-evidence objection concerning gang affiliations and other shootings.

Holdings

1. Trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally inadequate because counsel made factual claims about what the phone records would show without verifying that the records supported those claims.
2. Petitioner was not entitled to post-conviction relief because he failed to show that counsel’s deficient performance had a tendency to affect the result of the murder trial.
3. Trial counsel did not provide inadequate assistance by failing to object on propensity grounds to the gang-affiliation evidence and evidence of prior shootings involving the .380-caliber handgun.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally inadequate assistance by stating in opening argument that phone records would show petitioner was not with Lomax at the time of the shooting without verifying the records.
2. Whether petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s inaccurate opening-statement claim about the phone records.
3. Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally inadequate assistance by failing to preserve an objection that gang-affiliation evidence and evidence concerning prior shootings involving a .380-caliber handgun were inadmissible propensity evidence.

Disposition

affirmed