Court Opinion

ID: 9534440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:39:44.397373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:38.296010
License: Public Domain

HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
I write separately to address an ostensible anomaly in the majority opinion. As I read that opinion, 140 Or App at 8, it suggests that: (1) in some cases, appellate counsel will have to perform their Balfour function without the benefit of a transcript; but (2) counsels’ Balfour review and certification can, nevertheless, be the subject of post-conviction relief. If I were an appellate public defender, I might well feel “whipsawed.”1
Literal readings notwithstanding, my understanding of the majority opinion and its practical implications is considerably more benign. Here, as in every other aspect of *9criminal representation, the standard of care is one of reasonable, professional representation. See Krummacher v. Gierloff, 290 Or 867, 872, 627 P2d 458 (1981). Acocella and Bonner particularly circumscribe the standard of care. So long as appellate counsel consult the sources identified in those cases — i.e., trial counsel, their clients, and the documentary record — and assess the information thus obtained with reasonable professional skill, they need not fear post-conviction “whipsawing,” either with respect to the failure to obtain a transcript or their ultimate Balfour certification.

 Other idioms might also come to mind: “Heads I win; tails you lose.” “Now you see it, now you don’t.”