Case Name: John Sorn LARSEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark NOOTH, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2018-06-20
Citations: 425 P.3d 484
Docket Number: A162167
Parties: John Sorn LARSEN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Mark NOOTH, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.
Judges: Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 425
Pages: 484–491

Head Matter:
John Sorn LARSEN, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Mark NOOTH, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.
A162167
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted March 22, 2018.
June 20, 2018
Jed Peterson and O'Connor Weber LLC filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Petitioner, who was required to wear an electronic restraint device at his criminal trial, appeals from a judgment denying post-conviction relief on his claim that his trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not objecting to the use of the electronic restraint or requiring that a record be made to justify the use of the restraint. He raises two assignments of error. In the first, he contends that the post-conviction court erred when it concluded that he was not entitled to relief absent a showing of actual prejudice. However, as petitioner recognizes, that contention is foreclosed by Sproule v. Coursey , 276 Or. App. 417, 367 P.3d 946, rev. den. , 359 Or. 777, 381 P.3d 818 (2016). Petitioner contends that Sproule was wrongly decided and should be overruled; we are not persuaded. In the second assignment of error, he asserts that the post-conviction court erred when it admitted the affidavit of Corporal Bruce. Having considered the affidavit and the parties' arguments, we disagree.
Affirmed.