Opinion ID: 1368663
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure of trial counsel to object to material in the presentence report.

Text: This is a claim of inadequacy of counsel's assistance under the state and federal constitutions. Petitioner testified that his juvenile record from Minnesota and Michigan should not have been mentioned in the presentence report and that his counsel was derelict in failing to object to the judge considering it. At the most, this is an attack on the actions of whatever officials from those states made the records available. They were available to the presentence investigator in this state. ORS 419.584(4)(f) provides that juvenile records of this state are available to a sentencing court: (4) Fingerprint and photograph files or records of a child shall be kept separate from the records and files of adults and shall be open to inspection only by, or the contents disclosed only to, the following:    (f) A criminal court for the purpose of a presentence report or other dispositional proceeding following conviction of a criminal offense;   . The public policy of this state, as declared by the legislature, is that a sentencing court shall have the offender's juvenile record. We discover no denial of state or federal constitutional rights in this respect. Petitioner also contends under this claim that his trial counsel should have objected to information in the presentence report concerning allegations of other criminal charges. The report contains the following: DETAINERS OR PENDING CHARGES: Michigan Department of Corrections, warrant # B1393026 issued 05.20.82, charging parole violation for the original offenses of Murder In The Second Degree (two counts). Defendant, who was convicted using the name of Ivan Gideon Landau, dob 10.15.53, was released on parole 01.15.82 and absconded 05.07.82. Available information further indicates that warrants have already been served against defendant: Robbery In The First Degree, Portland, Oregon; Armed Robbery, Kent County, Michigan; and Murder, Barren County, Kentucky. Further, the report shows that when arrested on the instant charge, petitioner told the police that he had, in fact, robbed two Portland banks on 06.04.82 and 06.07.82 [the day before the instant offense]. Defendant also related to police details of an alleged crime spree while he was on parole abscond status. On trial of the instant case, petitioner testified that the other warrants mentioned had not been served on him at the time the criminal trial judge considered the presentence report and that petitioner had not been tried on those charges. The presentence report, which was offered by petitioner and received in evidence in the instant case, is evidence that the warrants had been served. In light of petitioner's concession in his testimony in the instant case that the report is accurate, we can discern no substantial denial of petitioner's constitutional rights to adequate assistance of counsel for failure to object to these matters in the report.