Wyant v. Miller

346 Or. App. 103

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: December 24, 2025
• Docket: A183548
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

No. 1125 December 24, 2025 103

This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

DANIEL CHRISTOPHER T. WYANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jamie MILLER, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent. Malheur County Circuit Court 21CV04387; A183548

J. Burdette Pratt, Senior Judge. Submitted November 24, 2025. Jedediah Peterson and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for appellant. Dan Rayfield, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Greg Rios, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. PER CURIAM Affirmed. 104 Wyant v. Miller

PER CURIAM Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post- conviction relief. In 2016, following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted of murder based on his fatal shooting of his ex-girlfriend. After the judgment of conviction was final, petitioner sought post-conviction relief. Petitioner claims that trial counsel provided inadequate assistance under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and ineffective assistance under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, by failing to object to statements made by the prosecutor in rebut- tal closing argument. In petitioner’s view, the prosecutor made an argument inconsistent with the presumption of innocence and also improperly attacked petitioner’s charac- ter. The post-conviction court denied relief, and petitioner appeals. The superintendent maintains that the court did not err in denying relief. We agree with the superintendent and, accordingly, affirm. A criminal defendant has the right to adequate and effective assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11, and the Sixth Amendment. Antoine v. Taylor, 368 Or 760, 767, 499 P3d 48 (2021). A violation of those rights entitles a petitioner to post-conviction relief. ORS 138.530(1)(a). Under the Oregon Constitution, to succeed on a claim of inadequate assistance, a petitioner must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that “counsel failed to exercise reasonable professional skill and judgment, and that the petitioner suf- fered prejudice as a result.” Johnson v. Premo, 361 Or 688, 699, 399 P3d 431 (2017). “A functionally equivalent two-el- ement standard governs petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.” Smith v. Kelly, 318 Or App 567, 568-69, 508 P3d 77 (2022), rev den, 370 Or 822 (2023). When the post-conviction court denies relief on a claim of inadequate or ineffective assistance of counsel, we review for errors of law. Green v. Franke, 357 Or 301, 312, 350 P3d 188 (2015). In doing so, we are bound by the post- conviction court’s findings of historical fact so long as there is evidence in the record to support them, and, to the extent that the court did not make explicit findings on all issues as Nonprecedential Memo Op: 346 Or App 103 (2025) 105

to which the facts could be decided more than one way, we will presume that it decided the facts consistently with its conclusions of law Id. In this case, having considered the parties’ argu- ments and reviewed the record, we conclude that the post- conviction court did not err in denying relief. On this record, we agree with the post-conviction court that trial counsel’s decision not to object to the statements at issue was reason- able and did not constitute constitutionally deficient perfor- mance. The performance issue is dispositive, so we need not address prejudice. The judgment denying post-conviction relief is affirmed. Affirmed.