Balogh v. Howton

227 P.3d 757, 233 Or. App. 614, 2010 Ore. App. LEXIS 126

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: February 17, 2010
• Docket: 07C13223; A139239
• Status: Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner appeals a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. He contends, in part, that, in the underlying criminal case, he received constitutionally inadequate assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to “challenge the admissibility of the state’s expert witness’s ‘diagnosis’ of sexual abuse[.]” That assignment of error is controlled by our recent decision in Umberger v. Czerniak, 232 Or App 563, 222 P3d 751 (2009) (trial counsel did not render constitutionally inadequate assistance where, before the Oregon Supreme Court rendered its decision in State v. Southard, 347 Or 127, 218 P3d 104 (2009), counsel failed to object to expert’s qualifications to testify about whether the victim had been sexually abused). As in Umberger, we conclude here that petitioner’s trial counsel did not fail to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment when counsel failed to object to the expert testimony at issue. We reject petitioner’s other assignments of error without discussion.

Affirmed.