Scott v. Pedro

310                   July 30, 2025                No. 683

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion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

             KEEANDRE JUAN SCOTT,
                 Petitioner-Appellant,
                           v.
                    David PEDRO,
                   Superintendent,
        Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution,
                Defendant-Respondent.
            Umatilla County Circuit Court
                 22CV24521; A185084

  J. Burdette Pratt, Senior Judge.
  Submitted June 13, 2025.
  Corbin Brooks and Equal Justice Law filed the brief for
appellant.
  Ryan Kahn, Assistant Attorney General, waived appearance for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Chief Judge, and Egan, Judge.
  LAGESEN, C. J.
  Affirmed.
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2025)                            311

           LAGESEN, C. J.
         Petitioner appeals a judgment denying post-conviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to
ORAP 5.90 and State v. Balfour, 

, 

(1991). The brief does not contain a Section B. See ORAP
5.90(1)(b). We affirm.1
         In the underlying criminal case, petitioner pleaded
guilty to second-degree assault for a stabbing. He was sentenced to an agreed 70 months’ imprisonment, under Ballot
Measure 11. The state dismissed additional charges including attempted murder, first-degree theft, and unlawful use
of a weapon.
          In the post-conviction court, petitioner argued that
trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to advise petitioner about self-defense; to advise about or challenge the
“legality of the evidence presented” to the grand jury; and
to advise petitioner about the change in the law requiring
felony juries to be unanimous for guilty verdicts. He also
made a stand-alone claim that his federal rights to due process, a fair trial, and to indictment by a grand jury had been
violated. Petitioner supported his claims with his own affidavit. The superintendent provided declarations from the
prosecutor and from trial counsel.
         The post-conviction court credited trial counsel’s
testimony that she had “thoroughly advised Petitioner
regarding the law on self-defense” multiple times, that she
advised every client post-Ramos that they could be convicted only by a unanimous jury, and that she believed
that the state’s evidence had been “overwhelmingly strong.”
The post-conviction court likewise credited the prosecutor’s recollection that she had a compelling case considering the evidence that petitioner “was on scene when police
arrived, he was immediately identified by the victim, he had
a firearm belonging to the victim on his person, as well as
a knife, which was still bloody and had a piece of flesh on
the blade.” The post-conviction court also found petitioner’s
testimony not credible. The court also concluded that it was

   1
     As authorized by ORS 2.570(2)(b), this matter is determined by a two-judge
panel.
312                                             Scott v. Pedro

not deficient performance for his trial attorney to not move
against the indictment, nor did the indictment violate petitioner’s federal constitutional rights. The court likewise concluded that petitioner had not proved prejudice. The post-conviction court denied relief.
         Having reviewed the record, including the post-conviction court file and the transcript of the hearings, and
having reviewed the Balfour brief, we have identified no
arguably meritorious issues.
        Affirmed.