The Oregon Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's ruling that denied Brett George Kleng's petition for post-conviction relief. This decision affects Kleng, who was convicted of multiple sex crimes against minors, and it highlights the challenges faced by defendants seeking to overturn convictions based on claims of ineffective legal representation.
The case, Kleng v. Reyes (Docket A184031), was filed on June 10, 2026. Kleng appealed the judgment after the Umatilla County Circuit Court denied his petition for post-conviction relief. The court's ruling is significant as it underscores the legal standards surrounding claims of inadequate counsel and the burden on defendants to prove their claims.
Background
Brett George Kleng was charged in 2018 with 18 counts of various sex crimes involving three different minor victims. The charges included first-degree unlawful sexual penetration and first-degree sexual abuse. The allegations stemmed from an incident where Kleng, while massaging his stepdaughter's injured leg, touched her vaginal area and penetrated her with his fingers. Kleng later entered an Alford plea on one of the counts, which allowed him to maintain his innocence while acknowledging that the prosecution had enough evidence to convict him.
After his conviction, Kleng sought post-conviction relief, arguing that his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate and ineffective. He claimed that his attorney failed to file a motion for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the prosecution did not prove the element of forcible compulsion necessary for his convictions. Kleng raised several additional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in his appeal.
The Ruling
The Oregon Court of Appeals, led by Judge Hellman, affirmed the lower court's decision to deny Kleng's petition for post-conviction relief. The court reviewed the claims and found that Kleng did not demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court stated, "[T]he post-conviction court did not err when it denied relief on this claim."
In addressing Kleng's claim regarding the failure to file a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court noted that the evidence presented at trial supported the conclusion that Kleng used sufficient force to compel the victim to submit to the sexual contact against her will. The court concluded that Kleng did not show a reasonable likelihood that a motion for judgment of acquittal would have been granted if his attorney had filed it.
Impact
The court's ruling has significant implications for Kleng and others in similar situations. It reinforces the difficulty defendants face when claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of demonstrating both the inadequacy of counsel's performance and the resulting prejudice to the defendant's case.
Moreover, this decision may set a precedent for future cases involving post-conviction relief claims in Oregon. Defendants must provide clear evidence that their counsel's actions or inactions had a substantial impact on the outcome of their trials. The court's affirmation of the lower court's ruling indicates a rigorous standard for proving claims of ineffective assistance.
What's Next
Kleng's options for appeal appear limited following this ruling. He may seek further review, but the likelihood of success in overturning the court's decision is uncertain. There are currently no related cases pending that could affect this ruling.