Background
Awes Sheikhuna was convicted of first-degree assault and first-degree criminal mistreatment after his infant son suffered injuries that left the child in a permanent vegetative state. The state relied on evidence that Sheikhuna was the only adult caring for the child during a short period before the child was taken to the emergency department, together with expert testimony about the injuries and the force required to cause them. Sheikhuna received a 120-month prison sentence.
In post-conviction proceedings, Sheikhuna sought to add a claim that trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate for failing to call witnesses who would have described him as a good father. His appointed post-conviction attorney declined to add the claim, and Sheikhuna filed a motion under Church v. Gladden asking the court to replace counsel or direct her to amend the petition. Counsel submitted a declaration describing her review of the trial record, trial counsel’s files, and related materials. The post-conviction court denied the motion and ultimately denied relief.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that the question on a Church motion is not whether the proposed post-conviction claim is facially meritorious, but whether appointed counsel’s refusal to raise it reflects a failure to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment.
The record showed that trial counsel knew about the character witnesses, had prepared to call them, and made a tactical decision not to do so. The prosecutor had warned that testimony portraying Sheikhuna as a good father would open the door to other “very troubling” videos found on his cellphone. Because post-conviction counsel reviewed the trial transcript and trial counsel’s files, she could reasonably assess the proposed claim without personally interviewing the witnesses. Sheikhuna therefore failed to establish a legitimate complaint about post-conviction counsel’s performance, and the lower court was not required to replace counsel or order her to add the claim.
Key Takeaways
- A Church motion asks whether post-conviction counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, not whether the petitioner’s proposed claim is itself facially valid.
- Post-conviction counsel did not need to interview the proposed character witnesses where the trial record showed that trial counsel knew of them and strategically declined to call them.
- The risk that favorable character testimony would open the door to damaging rebuttal evidence supported trial counsel’s tactical decision and post-conviction counsel’s refusal to challenge it.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the evidence a petitioner must present to obtain relief under Church when appointed post-conviction counsel refuses to add a requested claim. A disagreement over litigation strategy is insufficient when the record reasonably supports counsel’s professional judgment.
The opinion is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as permitted by ORAP 10.30(1).