Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. In his brief submitted through counsel, petitioner assigns error to the post-conviction courts denial of relief on his claim that trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective, in violation of Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for failing to object to alleged vouching testimony. See, e.g., Gable v. State of Oregon, 353 Or. 750, 758, 305 P.3d 85 (2013) (stating standard for Article I, section 11, claim); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (stating standard for Sixth Amendment claim). In a pro se supplemental brief, petitioner identifies 10 other alleged deficiencies with counsels performance. On review for legal error, Green v. Franke, 357 Or. 301, 312, 350 P.3d 188 (2015), we affirm.
Vouching. Petitioner contends that his trial counsel was inadequate and ineffective for not objecting to (1) a question, which the prosecutor asked the detective who interviewed petitioner, about discrepancies between petitioners version of events and the victims version of events; and (2) the detectives response to that question, about the possible meanings of that discrepancy. Petitioner maintains that this answer constituted impermissible vouching, that the prosecutors question eliciting it was improper, and that trial counsel should have objected to both.
In response, the superintendent argues that petitioners claim about the question—as distinct from the answer—was not alleged in his post-conviction petition, and was not argued below, making it unpreserved. As for the claim about the answer, the superintendent argues that the detectives statement did not constitute vouching. Because the testimony was not vouching, the superintendent reasons, trial counsel reasonably did not raise a vouching objection and petitioner was not prejudiced by the omission of any such objection.
We agree with the superintendent. Petitioners contention that trial counsel was inadequate for not objecting to the prosecutors question was neither alleged in the petition nor otherwise argued below, so we reject it as unpreserved. As for the contention that trial counsel was inadequate for not objecting to the detectives testimony as impermissible vouching, that fails because the testimony was not vouching testimony. “ ‘Vouching’ refers to the expression of ones personal opinion about the credibility of a witness.” State v. Sperou, 365 Or. 121, 128, 442 P.3d 581 (2019). The detectives challenged statement here cannot reasonably be understood to express the detectives personal opinion about defendants credibility. Accordingly, because the testimony was not vouching testimony, trial counsel did not perform deficiently when he did not raise a vouching objection, and petitioner was not prejudiced by the lack of a vouching objection because it would not have succeeded. See Warren v. Baldwin, 140 Or. App. 318, 322, 915 P.2d 1016, rev. den., 324 Or. 229, 925 P.2d 908 (1996) (no prejudice results from trial counsels failure to file a motion if the motion would not succeed).
Pro se supplemental brief. In his pro se supplemental brief, defendant identifies 10 additional ways in which, he contends, trial counsel rendered constitutionally deficient assistance. Those specifications are not supported by adequately developed argument for us to consider them and we reject them for that reason. See, e.g., State v. Dawson, 277 Or. App. 187, 190, 369 P.3d 1244, rev. den., 359 Or. 847, 383 P.3d 851 (2016) (Court of Appeals will decline to consider assignments of error that are not supported by adequately developed argument; court will not develop argument for a party). In addition, we note that at least some of the specifications were not included in the post-conviction petition. Although petitioner filed a motion under Church v. Gladden, 244 Or. 308, 417 P.2d 993 (1966), seeking to include them, the court denied that motion and petitioner has not assigned error to the courts Church ruling. For that additional reason, the contentions in the pro se supplemental brief do not supply a basis for reversal. Blaylock v. Laney, 313 Or. App. 519, 523-24, 494 P.3d 1000 (2021) (rejecting assignment of error that failed to engage with the basis for the trial courts ruling).
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM