Brian Ritchie v. Sharon Blacketter

MEMORANDUM

The Superintendent of the Eastern Ore gon Correctional Institution appeals the district court’s grant of a conditional writ of habeas corpus to Brian Ritchie. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that trial counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficiency prejudiced Ritchie’s defense. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Trial counsel did not explain to Ritchie the elements of the offense of compelling prostitution. OR. Rev.Stat. § 167.017(l)(b). Specifically, trial counsel could not answer the question whether the statute proscribes paying for sex with a minor with oneself, or whether it applies only to a person who induces or causes a minor to engage in paid-for sex with some third party. If Oregon case law indeed provided no guidance on that question, then counsel’s advice to plead guilty because the elements of the offense were a “gray area” might have been appropriate.

In fact, however, as the district court assumed, Oregon law is clear enough on this question that competent counsel would have advised Ritchie that the statute applies only to remunerated sex with a third party. In State v.…