\

Chapter 40

Oregon ' '

§ 40:1 Summary of postconviction remedies in Oregon § 40:2 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised S~atutes §§ 138.510

to 138.680 § 40:3 - -Independent civil action : § 40:4 --Death sentence stayed for 90 days § 40:5 - -§ 138.510-Statute of limitations , § 40:6 - - -Text of§ 138.510 § 40:7 - - -Statute of limitations-Case law. § 40:8 - -§ 138.520~udgment entered by co,urt. § 40:9 - - -Text of§ 138.520 · § 40:10 - -§ 138.525-Dismissal or meritl~ss petj,tion § 40:11 ---Text of§ 138.525 § 40: 12 - -Text of§ 138.527 . , § 40:13 ___, -§ 138.530-Newly discovered evid~nce of

· innocence § 40:14 --"""'.7Text of §_13~.q3.0 § 40:15 - -§ 158.540-Exclusive means for collateral

§ 40:16 § 40:17

§ 40:18 § 40:19 § 40:20 § 40:21 § 40:22 § 40:23

§ 40:24 § 40:25 § 40:26 § 40:27 § 40:28 § 40:29 § 40:30 § 40:31 § 40:32

challenge of c~al_judwn.ent or unqe_~lying · . proceedings . ..· . , . . . ---Text of§ 13~~&40 , . . ; . , - -§ 138.550-All. grounds: for relief must .b~ ..

asserted. · - - --:--1~}ffect~ of dire~t appeal - - -Text of§ 138.550 ---Case law - -§ 138.560--cFiling i '

- - -Filing fee - - -When release of petitioner renders a pending

proceeding moot , -., . . . .. - - -Text of§ 138.560 - -Text of§ ·138.570 · - _;,Text of § 138.580 - -Text of§ 138.585 - -§ 138.590-Right to counsel - - -Amendment of petition - - -Text of§ 138.590 - - -Right to counsel-Case· law,.· - ...;...§ 138.61~Leave· to withdraw petition

537

§ 40:33 . § 40:34 § 40:35 § 40:36 § 40:37 § 40:38 § 40:39 § 40:40

§ 40:41 § 40:42 § 40:43 § 40:44 § 40:45 § 40:46 § 40:47 § 40:48 § 40:49 § 40:50 § 40:51 §'40:52 § 40:53. § 40:54 § 40:55

§ 40:56

§ 40:57 § 40:58 § 40:59

§ 40:60 § 40:61 § 40:62 § 40:63 § 40:64

§ 40:65 § 40:66 § 40:67 § 40:68 § 40:69 § 40:70 § 40:71 § 40:72

538

STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDI~s AND RELIEF

- - -Respondent has 30 days to respond ---Text of§ 138.610 --Text of§ 138.615 - -Text of§ 138.620 - -Text of§ 138.622

. .I

- -Text of,§ 138.630 - -Text of§ 138.640 : ! .

- -§ 138.650-Judgment entered by court-Either party may appeal ~ ·· 1": - • .. • •. •

- __;__:.-Text. of.§; 138:650 · · · - -Text of§ 138.660 - -Text of§ 138.665 - -Text of§ 138.670· : - -Text of § 138.680 ~ · --Case law Writ of habeas: cori}us -Proceeding· is· 'an independent ~civil act:lon -Filing . . '. -Right to.counsei · - .;_Case law -Filing fee -Order granting or denying is final appealable order > • •

-May not be used to challen.ge conviction or sentence -UP9PA does not limit jurisdiCtion of Oreg<?n.

Supreme:Gourt · : '·. · · ·. 1 ' • .»1 ·· · · -May:be used to raise clainis unrelated tel' the · validity of the conviction or sentence ·

-Conditions where relief is 'barred t. · t ·

-Raisiiig clanns. of sentence· expiration ; -Inmate claims of unconstitutional deprivation· of

rights while confined ·or· unfawftil confinement conditions : · · ·" ·: ·

- -Case law · · · · 1· -Case law regarding habeas corpus . Motion to correct void sentence

· -Case law .. . .. :.._ " , . · .. Judicial review of orders of Board of Paroles and

Post-Prison Supervision : 1 .. .. : . • •

-Exhaustion of administrative ,:remedies -Contents of petition ,-, : , -Right to counsel .. · -Oregon Revised Statutes §·144.335-Text -Case law .. ,1, .. · ·.1

Writ of error coram nobis ; ..: -' ... Postconviction DNA testing statute -Or. Rev •. stat. Ann. §§ 188.690. ,to, 138.69~Text

t . \ ~ •

I '

( .

•' . /

I

OREGON .'·i. .§ '40:1

§ 40:78 : · · Oregon postcoriviction DNA testing statute-Case law · , § 40:74 Erroneous Convictions Act·,· d 1; .• • ;1 .•

KeyCite~·: Cases and oiher legal materials listed in KeyCite ·Scope · ca~-;he researched through· the KeyCite service· oh WestlaW®. Use· KeyCite to check citations for form, parallel references, prior and later ;itlstory, and comprehen- ' s~~e p~~a1to,~ •. i,i;ifo~a~op, ~.cludi~~.ci.t~.~~~~· to other .. d~cisi9ns an~ sec~nd~

· · mater1a s.· ~ · · · · · ·· ,• · , •' · · · .. , I;.

' ~~ • ~ , :-1 • ' ' ' ' '' 0 ' •. I • . " ! ! I I t '

§ 40:1 Swiun~ of postconvfotion r.emedi~s hi .·qr~on

Princip~ postconViction remedy: · · :· · . · · ' · · . UPCPA: (1955·· version). This remedy is' applied· in the circuit

court.of the county of confinenient, or, if the· petitioner is not im­prisoned, in the convicting courtj. The remedy· is an independent civil action,. not: a postsentencing ·phase of. the origin:a1 :criminal case. The remedy is authorized by statute~;There is no.-custody requirement under -the remedy., Ne~ly <fiscovere4 evid~mce 9f in­nocence is.not.a gro~d,for relief.,unde;rthe)"~me4y:.i, ~ . ~· . .

Right to counsel: ·. . ... · . . , ~ '. . . . . . . There is a right ·to .. counsel in 'Oregc)µ.~(JPQPA.!Pro.t~edmg$·.;~ :! .

. • , , '. , t '.. f • ~ • ~ ' I ": ~ -~ ;,. , ;

Statut~: o' linµ~ation,s:. · '. ... I , "· t • -- , l . " ... , .;; . . A petition· :for .postconvfotion relief .pursuant ·toJ the' ·oregon

UPCPA must be file'd within: :two: years iof .the.~.follo:wing/ unless the court,on hearing.aisubsequent petition.finds grounds'.fo~ relief asserted· which could not reasonably. have been raised in the orig­inal .or· .amended. petition: €1) '.if no. appeal. is take~;. the. date :the judgment•or: ·arder .on ihe ~ coq.viction· w;as: entered· in the register; (2) if. a~ ap:ge~ is,__tak~n, t~e :AAte i~e a:gp~ai js fi.naj. in t4~ Oregon appellate courts; (3) if a petitiQJ?. fqr c~I1iorari t~. ,the· U~.S. 81.Jpr~me .Cotµt i~JiJ~, thelat~;r of ~ither:. (~) t~~ .@te. o(qeni~ qf cer.tio­rB.ri, if ~he petiti9n is deajed;.9r~(b) :'t:tie.cJ~t~ o( ~ntrY. of.a.final sct~te. ~o~ j~~gme~:t following ·relµati~ fr.Q~· t~e. u ~~· . ~up1

f.~~e ourt. . . . , . . ,.

~ ~ ' . ! , I . ,

Secondaey postconviction remedies: Habeas corpus

\ I.' ~ " .I , ~ ,• ' "\.: i ,.t I ~. • • ( •~ ~ ~ • '• ' • ~~

Motion .to· correct.void sentence ' . I ' •• . . . : . ' . " ~ . ~\. - . . . ' . . .. . . - .' · .... :·. . ;• ·"- ·" _, .

Judicial review of certain orders of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison !Supervision -; : :i ... i I . '. •fi. . .. i. 'i ·>·.. . . '; " :Other.~e~~dies:'/·;· ~ ., ; . '.ii ~::: , .' ·.i·: .. ::.:;

· . Coram no bis· is :q.o ·longer an ·available postconviction remedy :in Oregon. . . : . · · J . , ·.' i . . , , , . . ~ ,i :, .

i539

§ 40:1 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

Oregon has a postconviction DNA ,testing statute; enacted in 2003, and amended in 2003 and· 2005.

Oregon does not have an erroneous convictions act.

Helpful readings: (1). Grantland, Protection of Prisoners' Rights i~ Oregon, 14

Willamette L. Rev. 55 (1977) · · . . (2) Greene, The Oregon Approach to Post~CorivictioD: Relief, 27

Ohio St. L.J. 274.(1966) (3) Collins and Neil, The Oregon Postconviction-Hearing Act,

39 Or~ L. Rev. 33-7 (1960) · · · ' (4) Wheatley, Coram Nobis in Oregon and the, Need for Modern

Postconviction Procedure.,Legislation, 38 Or. L. Rev. 158 (1959) (5). Comment: Due Process for Parolees.: Oregon's Response to

Morrissey v. Brewer, 53 Or .. L. Rev. 57 (1973) .. .(6} Moule and Hanft, Parole Decision-Making in Oregon, 55

Or. L.- Rev. 303 (1976) (7) Sonerishein, Eyewitness Errdrs and Wrongful Convictions:

I Let's Give Science a Chance,. 89 Or. L. Rev. 263 (2010) .

§ 40:2 Oregon UPCPA-Orego~ Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.680 , '

• ..

The principal postconviction remedy hf Oregon ;is the 1955 ver­sion o·f the. l!JPCPA, which is codified in 21 sectiOns of Chapter 138 ("Appeals;'.·Post-Conviction Relief') of Title 14 ("Procedure in Criminal·Matters Generally") of.the;Oregon.Revised Statutes An­notated· (Rev.· Stat.· Ann. § 138 .. 510 through Or~ § 138.680). Mon­tana and Maryland ~e the only other· states where the .1955 ver­sion of the·UPCPA is the principal postconviction remedy.·

Oregoni adopted' the·remedy by :statute in 1959. 'Act of May 26, 1959, ch. 636, 1959 Or~ Laws 1311: ·

The grounds or types of claims that give rise to postconviction relief' are those in which· a petitioner asserts a ·denial of constitu­tfonaf rights, lack of jurisdictio'n, excessive sentence, or the

. unconstitutionality of a statute. Datt v. Hill, 347 Or. 672,-227 P.3d 714 (2010).

§ 40:3 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes ,' . §§ 138.510 to 138.680-lndependent· ~ivil action

A proceeding under the. Oregon UPCPA i~ ,~n ind~pendent Civil action, not a postsentencing phase of the original criminal case. See, e.g., Quimby v. Hill, 213 Or. App. 124, 159 P.3d.1264 (2007) (the Oregon :Rules· of Civil Procedure generally apply to postcon­viction proceedings; a separate statute, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann.

540

OREGON § 40:6

§.138~610, contains certain pleading rules that are specifically ap­plicable to postconviction relief actions); Asman v. State, 210 Or. App. 369, 150 P.3d 1101· (20Q7) (a. p~tition. brought pursuant to the provisions of the Oregon UPCPA"is civil in nature; the ·oregon Rules· of Civil Proce~ure· govern all ci'11 actions~· including those of statutory origin, except where a different procedure is specified by statute or rule)~ ·· 1

• ' • ·

Th~:re is no custody requi:r;-eme.nt. in proceedings . u.nCler ·the Oregon UPCPA.. · ; ' · ·

§ 40:4 Oregon 'UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes . . · · §§ 138.510 to·1s8.68~Death sentence stayed for 90 days

1.. .• ' :

A death s~~tence shall ·be. stayed for 90 days for filing the convicted person's first postconvic_tion relief, but .. to obtain the stay the convicted per~on must file a motion with the circuit court .attesting that the con~~ted p·erson ·.intends ~o' file th~ peti-__ tion for pm~tconViction relief. The stay runs. from ~he da't~ the direct appeal is filial, and-may be extended on a showing 'by the convicted person progress is being made in preparation of the peti~oii. Or. ,Rev~. Stat.· Anri. § 138.686. · · ·

§ 40:5 ··Oregon UPCPA-O;rego~ Revised StatUte·s §§ 138.510 to 138.680-§ 138.5i0-Statute of limitations

There is a statute ·of limitations on applyirig for relief under the Oregon UPCPA. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.510(3) (a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Oregon UPCPA must be filed within two years of the following, unless the court· on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably. have been raised in· the original or amended petition: (1) if no appeal is taken, the date the.judgment or order on the conviction was entered in the register; (2) if .an appeal is taken, the date the appeal is final in ~h:e Oregon appellate courts; or (3) if a petition for certiorari to the ,United ,States Supreme Court is filed, the later of the date of denial of certiorari, or the date of. entry of a final stat~ ~ourt· judgment following remand f!om the United .States Supreme Court).

§ 40:6 Orego~ UPCPA~Oreg()n Revised ~tatutes · ; §§ 138.510 to 138.6~~§ l38.51~Text of § 138.510

The Oregon UPCPA is codified in 21 sections of Chapter 138 ("Appeals;. Post-Conviction Relief') of Title 14 ("Procedure in Criminal Matters Generally") .of the Oregon iRevised Statutes An-

541

§:40:6. STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

notated (Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. ·§ 138;510· through :§(138.680). ·It provides:· .· · · . . · · · : · ~ · . : · · , · ,. · ~ .. · 138.510~ Petition for relief; time limit· · ·: · : · · ·:

~-'. i \.' .,-: :.··: ... ~··-.;•" .•. ~); : ,#1,

· · . (1) . ~x~ept a~ o~~e~s~ Pf~vide~l in O~S.1~~.540,' any p~~~on . convicted of' a crime. 1.inaer the ~i;tws of ~~s ·state may file a ·pe­

titioxi for postcontictfon relief pursuant to ORS. 1_38.5~o·· to 138.680. ' . , . . .

(2) ·'A'petition for postconVicticm-'relief ~ay be· "filed ·~:f':6.:qe . person on behalf of another person who has been convicted . of

aggravated iµµrde.r and ,sentenced.to qeath only if the person filing ~he petition demonstrates 1;>y)a preponderan~e of the .. eVi-dence that: · '· · ~· · · · · · · · · ,.

(a) The person sentenced to death is unable to file a peti­tiort ·9n·the person's own behalf due'fo mental·incapacity·or because :pf a: lac~ of acce·s~. to ·the court; and·: . : ·· . 1 ~ ·-· •

, : l' ~b) 1:h~ 'person. tµin~ t~~ peti~ioµ has. a ~i~4~an:t r~l.a~_on-1 ~l»P, w~t;o. th~ per~on senten~ed. to ~eath anCl. . ~1i1 act m ·the · be.stJll,~erest of the person on w,hose ;behalf the petition ig ·pe-

ing filed~ · . · · · ~ '. · :_'. . ·. · · · · "· · . · · . · · · . (3) A petition pursuant to ORS ·i3s:510 to 'i3s.a$o mµS't 'be filed within two years of the following~ unless the court ori hearing~ ~ubeequeqt ·.petj~i9n .. finds ~ounds for,relief.J:tsserteq which could .not ·reasop.ably haye been. rmsecl iri the originaI or amended. 1petition: · · ·· ·· · · · " ·

(a) If no appe~ is taken, the date the judgment or order on the· conviction was entered in the register. · ··

, . ·. (b) If~ ~ppeal is. t~ken~ the date the. a~pe~ is finai i~ th~ ·o~egon app~ll~te .co¢s.' , .. ·. · ·. ·.~ · ,·:- . · . · .

(c) If a.petition :fQr c_ertiorari to, the United States Supreme . Court is filed, .the later pf: · ,. · ···(A). The. date of denial of certiorari, if.the petition is

· : " denied;1 or . . .- 1 .. •

· '(B) ·The date of entry :c)f a :final state court judgment:fol-· _lowihg·remand· frbm the United States Supreme Court · · ( 4) A 'o~e-year filing period shall apply· retroactively. to

petitions· filed. by . person~: ·whose; :convictions . ·and appeals became final before AU:g\rst 5, ·r989, and· any such petitibns must be. filed w.ithin one year ~fter No:vember 4, 1993. A perso:q. whdse· ·pqst~cmvicti.on~-pet~~ion was 'di$,Il}is~eff prior. to

-. November· 4; 1993, camiot'filEn'inother postconviction: petition · \. involri,ng the.s13.1De case. : · '; "·, i. - ...

542

: (5) .. The remedy created by ORS 138.510·to 138.680 is avail- · able :to persons convicted befor~ May 26, 1959. ' ·

OREGON ·.·. ":: • i § 40:8

.- ·1 (6) In any postconviction ·proceeding pending in the courts of this state on.1May;26, .1959,.,the person seeking,relief in , such proceedings shall be allowed to amend· the actjon. ,@d seek relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680. If such person does not chop.se to :amen4 tb:e _action in this maµner, th~; l~w

· ~xi~~Qg ppo' tq May,~6, .. i959, ~qajl. govern; the case.

§' ·40:7 Orego~ UPCPA~Oregon Revised Statutes · §§ 138.510 ·to 188~68~§. 188•510-Statute of · .~, : l~itat•on~Case·Iaw:.: , ,. .

. £; :For case . law dh: 'time :1imitatioils on· ap}llY!ng· for relief under the Oregon 'tJPCPl\ see; e.g., Jerikins :v. Jdlinson, 330 .,.3<f '1146 (9th Cir. 2003) (examini'rig 'stattite ·of limitations on-petition$,. for postconviction relief filed under Oregon UPCPA; the Oregon legislatw:~ increased_:.theJimitation period to .two years in:il993); Ames v. [fill, 203 .Or.Ap.p. 3Q, 125:P.3rl\_.24.-(~005) (defendant was entitled to 20 days to respond to motion!to ~sm,iss PW~~onviction petition, even if.state's supporting documentation attached to motion to dismiss showed that petition -was filed more than. two years after conviction ·becameJ·final~ whe~e .defendant's :petition did.not allege datejudgmerit.or-order on conviction was entered, and thus, was not subject to dismissal on pleading). · ·

i• ..

§ 40:8J Oregon UPCPA-:-Oregon Revised Statutes _ . . §§ 138.510 to. 138.680-§ 188 .• 526--J\ldgment ente:red

, by court. . i • :rr · x. · , .-

=After, .deciding. the issuesf raised in· 'the proc'eedirig,- the court shall ·enter a judgment ·granting :or denying1the · apptopriate relief. Or. ·Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 138.520, 138.640(1). The relief which may be granted includes but -is ·not limited to release~ a-.new,trial, and modification of sentence. ·o:r. :Rev~ Stat. Anri[ § ·iSB.520. If the court grants the petitioner relief, ,tlie dudgment is· not enforceable in the petitioner's favor until: (1).the petitioner ca'1ses a certified copy of the jm;lginent t9 be. e.ritered '.in th,e _circuif court in which the petitioner's conviction .and sentence. were rendered; a~d (2) the petitioner serves a certified' copy of the judgment on the district attorney: of the county iJ:1 which the· petitioner's conviction arl:d sentence •were rendered.· Or. Rev;: Stat. Ami. § 138.640(2)~ ·In addition to any other relief a ·eourt may grant or order ilnder the UPCPA, the court·~hall award_ attorney fees .. to. the~;prevailing party if the court finds that the other· party's petition or response was frivolous. Or. Re:v. Stat •. Ann. §138.527(1). Such an award of attor.ney fees may not exceed: _$100.00. Or, Rev. Stat.: Ann. § 138.527(2). If the party required to pay :attorney, fees . is an

543

§ 40:8 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

inmate of a correctional institution,, the fees may be draWll from or charged against the inrilate's trust account. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.527(3). •

§ 40:9 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.68~§ 138~52{µ.Text of § ·138.520

138.520. Relief The relief which a court .may :grant or. order under ORS

138.510 to 138.680 shall include.; release, new trial, modifica-tion of sentence, and such other· relief as may be· proper and 1

just. The court may ,also make supplepien~ary orqers to th~ relief gra~ted, concerning such n;iatters as rearraignment, re~rial, custody, an~ releas.e o~ ·security.

§ 40:10 · Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.68~§ 138.525-Dismissalor · meritless petition , :

,. ' ' ' The court may dismiss a meritless petition for postconviction

relief on its own motion or on motion of the state. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.525(1). For· purposes of § 138.525, a meritless petition :ls a postconviction petition that, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim for relief. Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525(2). A judgment dismissing a meritless petition for postconviction is .not appealable .. Or~ Rev.· Stat. Ann. § 138.525(3). However, a dis­missal of a meritless petition for postconviction' relief is without prejudi~e if the dismissal is withqut a hearing and the petitioner was not rep~esentedby counsel. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 138.525(4).

§ 40:11 .Oregon UPCPA-Oregon R~vised Statutes §§ 188.510 to 13~.680-§ 138.525-Text of § 138.525

138.525. Meritless petition (1) The court may, on. its own motion or on the motion of the

defendant, enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 138.510 to 138.680. ·' · · ·

(2) As m~ed in thi~ section, "merltless petitiqn" means one that, when liberally construed, fails to st~te a claim ;upon :which pos~~nvicti~n relief may be ~anted. . . · . · (3) Notwithstanding ORS .138.650, a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable.

( 4) A dismissal is without prejudice if a meritless petition is dismissed without a hearing and· the petitioner was not represented ,by counsel.

544

OREGON § 40:14

:§ 40:12 ·oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to· 138.680-Text· of § 138.527

138.527. . Frivololis petition or· r~sponse; atto;rney fees (l), In addition to any other

1

relief a court' may grant or· order under ORS 138.510 to 138.680, the court shall award' attorney

. fees to the prevailing . party if th~ court_ finds that· the other · party's 'petition or response was frivolous. . · . .

1

· · (2) '.All award of at~e>~ney fees ,0.nder th;is s.~ction may ·not exceed $100. · ·

(3) If the party required to pay attorney fees is an inmate of a correctidnal <institution, the. fees. may be . drawh from,' or charged against, the inmate's trust account:

•' l {. ·, :. • • ;, ; .. '. : . -. ' . .

§ 40:13 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon. Revis.ed St~futes . · · · · ·: §§ 138,510 to 138•68C)..-§ 13S.53~Newly discovered

evid~nce of innocence · . . . <.New lY discovered ·e~ic;le~~e of. jp.nocE1.i;i~e is not a ground. for rel:ief _tiii~der the Oregon· UPCP A.. The Oregon UPCPA says noth­iilg about the cognizabiij.tY of claims o(newly discovered eviC;lence of innocence; and the;re are.,no O~ego:Q decisions, holdiQ.g tll.at such dainis are appropriate iri a UPCPA proceeding. · · ·

~ • t ' ' ' ; : • l . ' .. ,

. . § 40:14 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised 'Sta~tes

· · §·~-~38.510to.138.680-§ 138.53~Text of§ 138.530 · · 138.530. When relief must 'be pant~d; ~xecutiv~ clem·

ency or pardon powers and original jurisdi~~ tion of Supreme Court in habeas corpus not affected . . .

· (1) Postconyiction. relief pµrs~ant to ORS 138.510.to 138.680 shall.be ~~nted by the co:urt w:hen one or more of the followjng _groundS is~established by.the petitioner: ·' ' ·

' • • I '• ' • o

(a)··A substantial denfal in· the proc.e~dings resulting in pe~itioner's .conviction~. or in the .appellate review thereof,· of pet~tioner's rights under the Constitution of' the United States, or under the Constitution. of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void. . ·. , . (b) Lac~ ·9.f juri~dictio~ of th~ .court t~ impose the judg-ment re~c;Iered upon petitiQ~er's convi~tion. .

(c): Sentence in excess of, or otherwise not in accordance .with, the. sentence authorized by law for the crime of which petitioner. was convicted; or unconstitutionality_ of such

·'··~sentence.

(d) Unconstitutionality of the statute making criminal the -acts for which petitioner.was convicted.

545

§ :40:14 STATE PosTCONVICTION-REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

(2) Whenever a person· p_etitions for relief under. ORS 138.510 to 138.680,,0RS 138.'510. to.:138.680 shall ·not.be.construed to deny ~eli~f. wh~re .suAh ~~lief.~oulq .have· beep.. av~lab~~ P~,pr to :M:a~ 26, :~f)59, under the wnt of habeas corpus, nor·shall.1t be construed ~ ~e~ ariy powers of executive clemency. or. pardon

· J):fovided' by law~· · · · .. ·' · · ·· · "' · . .' .... (3) ORS 138.510 .to 13$~680 shall not be construed to.:limit the original: jurisdict~on 91 the s·µprem.e C~>Urt in hab~~s 9.orpus as provided in the ConstitutiOii of this state. . . . . .. ~

~ '

.' I'-, •:;- ; :: i l ,; '

§.,40:15· Oreg9n.UPCPA~Qr~gon Re'ri,~~d Stawtes.. ,. §§ 138.510 to 138.680.-§ ,158.540-Exclusive means for collater&l cb.8nenge of criminal judgment or underlying proceedings •, ~ • • • ,._, • ;;. \ • " I ' \ I '

', The;Oregon:UPCP.Ad$·the.e~clusiv~ means for c9Haterally chal­lenging a criminal judgment or. the pro~eeclings .upon.: which it is based. Qr. Rev~ Stat. AIµi. § l38.54Q(l). The ;UPCPAJs restric,ted to collateral· attacks on conVictiol'ls and ·sentences. See;··e.g., &ate v.· 'Jacob·,·: 344•. Or .. 181,; l80 P.:3d .6. (2008). (postconvictiori relie\(is the :exclu$jve, mean~ f6r challen~ilg .a 'oonViction, : once an: ;appeal nas .. been tlns'ucces$fu1;· or the ·tµne: for' 1~ppe·aI has passed)~ )Vhen a person restrained of his liberty by Virtue of' a criminal conVic­tion asserts th~ ;illegality ~f the _restrain~. on.gr~un~s .oth~r. t'1an the unl~wfulness.of tl}.f3j~dgmen.:t or the: P,roc~e~gs ·µpon which it is based,. relief shall be· sought not under the O.regon. P}lOPA but by habeas corpus or ·other· appropriate remedy~:or. Rev.' Stat. Anri.:·f 138!540(2). ·.' : "; -" .. ~· ., ; : ' .. >' " . " .

§ 40:~6 Orego~ _UPCPA-Oregon .~evised Statutes ·· ·;· · · · §§·138.510·tO 138.680-§·158.54~Text of§ 138.540 .-: · 188.54o.: : . Challenghig convi~tio:n;. petiti~n for relief · · . (1). Excep~ as. otl)erwise proVided iii ORS .1~8.510;,to .138 .. 680,

... : a·P,~ti.tio~ p~rsuant t~ o~.$ 138~510to,138:680 sh~ll)le the ·' exclusive means,· after judgment. r~n~ered upon a :conviction for

'" .·a crime, for 'c}i.8lle*ging the. lawfulne~s of such judgm!3iit C# the proceedings"' upon which it is bas.ed. The :re'mecJy creaied by ORS 138.510. to 138.6801 does. not replace. or .supers~de 'the mo­

"tion· for new trial, the' motion irl arrest' of judgment or direct appellate review of the sentence or convfotion; 0and· a petition

: :for relief wider ORS 138.510 to 138;680 shall not be filed while · . such motions or appell~te ·review remain available. With the

exception of habeas corpus, all common·law·postconviction.rem­edies, including the motion to correct the record, ·coram nobis,

·the motion: for relief in the nature. of coram nobis--and1 the mo-tion to vacate the ju.dgment,.8re,abolished in criminal cases.

546

OREGON· ) . "f . \ . • ~j" •. ·§·40:18

· . (2) .When a person· restrained by virtue of a judgment upon. a conviction of crime. assert13) the illegality; .of. the restraint upon grounds other than the unlawfulness of..such judgment or: ithe proceedings upon which _it is based or in the appellate review thereof, .r~~~f·s~a11; not b~~~vailabJ:e .und_er:.ORS. J38;;510 to

· 138.680 bJJ.t shall h~ .So'1ght ·by hab.e~s. co:rpus or onher reme­dies, if any, as .~therwis~-P.:r;~~iq~~-- by law~ . .t\~ .. use~ in_ this subsection, such other groundif include but are no~ limited· to

. · 'wtl~Wfur_ revocation·· hf '.parole ~or condition.al parddn or com-

._. p1eted service/ of. the sentence'imposed~ 'f;: 'I • ' ; . ,

• ' t • ' • ' ! •

§ ~:lf .Q~~gori w;'CPA~O~~gqi1lle:Vised·;a~8itutes . §§ 138.510 .to 13~.6~'b§.138~5p~All gro~ds for

" .; I• • ' r~~ef ~µs~'J)e ,a~~e.~~d ' • ~ n ' , C ' ' '

: · -All grounds, for. r.elief claimed by the petitioner must b~ as­serted in\ the original or· amended petition;· and any grounds not so asserted are· deemed waived, unless :the court on "heatjng a subsequent petition finds grounds 'for relief. asserted: :therein wbicp c_o~ld µot reasonably .hay~ peen raised in. the original or ~ended petition;. however, any \prior. petition .or amendect peti­tion w~ch was withdrawD; .prior to. the ~ntry. of jud~ent by leave of the cc.n¢, as .provided in,,Or. Stat.~.,,§ 138.610, .shfil.l.:have no .effect on p~titio~er's. right to bring ~ ~u}>sequent p~tition. Or. Rev. :Stat. Ann· § 1as.550(3). . , ; ..

. . •,\. .. : '_: .. : '

§ 40:1~ ·9regon UP~A~~egQn ~~~ed St~tut~s §§ 138.510 to 138.680-J.§ 138.550-Effects of direct appeal . '· . . . . •. . . . ' .

The failure of petitioner to have sought· appellate review of the conviction;· or to have raised matters alleged· in the ·petition at the trial of the ·petitioner, shall not affect the availability of relief under the Oregon UPCP A, but no proceeding -under the · UPCPA shall ·be :pursued while dir.ect appellate review of the conviction of the petitioner, a motion:- for new trial, or a motion _in, arr~st of judgment remains available. Or . .Rev~ Stat. Ann .. § 138 .. 550(1).

When· the petitioner sought and .obtained~.: direct ... appellate review of the conviction and ·sentence of the petitioner, ·nO ground for relief may be asserted by petitioner -in a.-petition:for·,relief under the UPCPA unless such ground: was .·n:ot asserted and•could not reasonably have been· asserted: in· the . direct appellate review proceeding; ·if petitioner was :not··represented by: counsel· :m the direct appellate review proceeding;, due ·to· lack of funds. to retain .such CQuns~l an.d the .failure of th~ cow:;t .. to .appoint<counsel for th~t .1m~~.ecling;· any Jground for .relief tQ.µper the .UPGPA .which -Wa~ 11).0t specific~lly de.~id~d .by the .app~llat~ cpurt,µiay: b.e as-

~7

§ 40:18 • STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

serted in the first petition for relief. under the UPCPA, unless otherwise provided in Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.550.··or. ·Rev. St~t. Ann. § 138.550(2).. I : •

§·40:19 Oregon·UPCPA--Oregon Revised Statutes· . §§ 138.510·.to 138.680-§ 138.550-TeXt of § 138~550

l38.550. Effect of prior judicial pro~eedings . . The ·effect of prior judicial proc:eedlngs concerning the c9nvic­

tion of petitioner which is challenged in the petition shall be as specified in this section and not otherwise: .

548

(1) The fail~re of petitioner to .have sought appellate review of the cdnviction, or fo have raised matters. alleged in the petition ~t' the trial of the petitioner, snall not affect the availability of relie( under ORS' 138.510 to 138:680. But no proceeding under ORS 138.510 to.138~680 shall be pursued while direct :appellate review of the conviction of the petitioner; ·a motion for new trial, or a motion in arrest· of judgment remains available.

(2) When the petitioner sought and obtained direct appel-·late review of the conviction and· ·sentence of th'.e petitioner,, no ground for relief may be asserte4 ·by petitioner in a peti­tion for relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 unless such ground was not asserted arid could not reasonably have been asserted in the direct appellate review proceeding. If petitioner was not represented by counsel in the direct appel­late review proceeding, due to, lacli of funds to retain ·such counsel and the failure of tlie court to appoint .c.ounsel for that proceeding, any ground for relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 which was not specifically decided by the appellate .court may be asserted in the first petition for relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680, unless otherwise. provided in this section.

· (3) All grounds for relief claimed by petitioner in a petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be asserted in the original or amended petition, and any grounds not so as:­serted are deemed . waived unless the court ori · hearing a sulisequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted therein which could not reasonably have been raised in the original ·­or amended petition. However, any prior petition or amended petition which was withdrawn prior to the entry of judgment by leave of the court, as provided in ORS 138.610, shall have no effect·on petitionerls right_to bring a subsequent petition.

( 4) Except as otherwise provided' in this subsection, no grouri.d for relief under ORS' 138.510 to.'138~680 claimed by

·petitioner may be asserted when such ground has been as-

..

OREGON § 40:20

serted in any postconviction proceeding prior to : May 26, · 1959, and relief was denied by the court; or when such ground could reasonably have been asserted in. the ·prior proceeding. However, if petitioner was not represented by counsel in such prior proceeding, any ground for relief under

· ORS 138.510 to 138.680 wlµch was not specifically decided-in the prior proceedings inay be raised in the first petition for relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138~68'0. Petitioner's asser­tion, in a post~onviction proceeding prior ~.May 26~ 1959, of a ground for· relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680, and the

. decision of'the. court in such 'proceeding adverse to t1le _petitioner; shall not prevenf the assertfon of tJ:ie sarµe gro.1:1nd ·in the first petition pursuant. to ORS 138 .. 510 to· 138.680 if ' the prior adverse decisioh'was on "the. gi;owid. that. no r~mf:!dy heretofore existing ,allowed relief upoµ the grounds~ alleged,

. .or if the decision, rested. µpon the inability of the .petitione~ to allege and p~ove matters. contradiCting the record of the trial which . resulted in. the cQnviction and sen.tence·,.of' the

. petitione.r~

§ 40:20 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised.Statute·s §§ 188.510tO138.68()..;...§ 138.55~Pa.se law

For case law on § 138.550, see e.g., Verduzco v. State, 357 Or. 553, 355 P.3d 902 (2015) (whether an issue-reasonably could ·be anticipated and raised .. in. a postconviction petition, for purposes of de.termining whether the issue may be raised in a successive petit~qi;i, does not depend· _on wh~~her the issue has been definitively re~olved by the courts; rather, the qm~stionwhether a claim reasonably could'have been raised earlier· will vary.with the facts and circumstances' of each claim; defendant reasonably could h~ve raised claims , in prior postconviciion pe.titi9n, that defense counsel had been meffective tor failing to advise' ltjm of the immigratioh consequences of pleading guilty to distribution of .a controlled substance and that plea .was invalid because trial court had failed to. give him the same advice -before accepting his guilty plea, and thus :defendant was barred from .-raising: claims in successive petition, even if new rule announced in· United States Supreme Court decision of Padilla· v. Kentucky, issued af­ter resolution of prior petition, would.have increased defendant's chance~ for success on the claims; defendant had in fact raised the· claims in the prior petition, and; having raised those grounds for relief in his prior petition~ -he could not subsequently claim that; he could not reasonably have raised them); State v; Link, 346 Or. ·1s7, 208 P;3d 936 (2009) (defendant had not assigned er­ror with respect to his convictions on Coitnts · 4 and 5 ·and thus

549

§ 40:20 Sm POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND .RELIEF

was ·barred from . challenging those convictions in postconviction proceedings on grounds. that ·he reasonably could have. asserted, but.pid'-:not assert;' on direct·.appeal; conversely, however, defendant· was entitled to .raise issues on postconviction that he reasonably .could not haye ·raised on direct appeal; postconviction (!Ourt could consider arguments nat made at trial w:here counsel was :lP.compe~:qt: or: guilty of bad f'3-i~h; \1\T~ere .~he _right .~µbse­quently SQilght. to b~ .asse~d )Vas -not· ge~erally ~~cogniz~d. to be in existence 1:1t !the .tiµie of trial; where counsel.was ex(!uSably un­aware of facts which. would ·have disclosed a basiS f'or the asser­~on 'of the rlght;,)aµ?.d whe~e duress or coerCion prevented ~ser­tion of the'right);-¥cGuigciri v: Hall, 31~ Fed .. A.ppx.,.98.6 (9th Cir. 200~) ·(u~der Orego~ law~ gr9tinds, fo~ p9stconviction relief.that are not; ·spe~ific~ly pleaded are'. deemed waiveq); Rern,ine: v~·· 1lill, 2009 WL' 723360 (D; ·or: 2009.), aff d; 370 Fed. Appx. 855 {9t4 Cir. · 2010) 1 (grounds· for' relief ribt raised· in the' PCR petition or amended p~titiori are . deemed waived;. claims of trial court error must generally be raised ·on ·direct app_eal, and are not recognized when presented fof:the·first time in PCRproceedings unless the pe~itioner prove·s that the failure to raise the issue··was due to one (or more) of a few narrowly drawn exceptions, for example, the failur~ was due to ,ineffective assistance of ... co.unsel,;._;or petitioner· ot}\erwise coiild. not .re~sonably have ,been 'expected tO raise the issue at trial).· .. · · ·· · · ' ·" · · ·

i .• ·, ·.,'I

§-.40:21 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon·,Revised Statutes· ~. -.. · · §§ · 188.GlO:·to .138~680-§ l38.o6Q....Filing . ·,; · .... · ·

.. ~ appiic.ation for relief tinder th~: Oregon UPCPA: is filed. .in t~e · circUit co~ pf th~ county of confirienient,. or, if ~he. applic~ is ·not.iinprisoned, in tp.~ conyicting_· coµrt. Or. Rev. St'at. Ann. §:· 138.560(1). If the convicte.d person is : on parole or. con~t~onal pardon,' he is deemed: to be in . the prison from which he,' was released. Or.· Rev. Stat, Ann.·§ 138.56()(2). If thEfpstitioner is·~~ prison~d iii a· Departme.nt of Corrections institution·· and the circuit ·comt for tile county :in which the petitionsr is imprisoned. finds that the hearing upon the petition can be ·niore· expedi~

· tiously: conducted in the county in· which the petitioner. was convicted; and. sentenced; .the circuit court ·upon its ·own-; motion or the motion· of a party may order the· petitioner's case ~to be transferred to.the.'circuit court for the county in which·petitioner~s conviction .and sentence. were. rendered .. Or~ .Rev. .. Stat. Ann~ §! 138.560(4). When a.:pe~itio_ner whQ is'impriao'ned~in,a Depan­ment of Corrections institu,tion.is traD:Sferred to: another .Depart~ ment of· Corrections institutiOn,. the . circµit court, in. which a. post"­conviction . relief proceeding is· pending may deny a. motion· fox. :~ change of venue to the county. where the.:petitioner:is.~ransferred~ Or. Rev: .. Stat. Anni § 138,560(5). . . .. ·

550

r

0REGON·f: . §.40:24

.. If ·the,convictedi.person.is·imprisoned, the ·postconviction ·peti­tion shall name· as defendant the: official charged .with~the· confine­ment of the petitioner. If the convicted person is not imprisoned, the.state shall be .. named. as defendan~. cOr .. Rey .. Stat. Ann. § .-13815·70... . . . "" i · .. _ : . ~~ ,..- .• -.. (' . ' ··: ~ {' :-' • L , , ..

§ .40:22 · ·O~egon· uPcPA-~Orego~: h~secl. Statutes;: ·:. · §§ 138.510. to .138.68~§ 138.~60-P.iling.>fee.

·~When a petitioner is alloweq' tO :file ·the· postconViction: petition v\7ithoutpa,yment of the $28.00'fee requi~ed:of Or.''Re\r. Stat. Ann:·§: 138.560(1) 'due tcf illability to pay;'the fee ·is: 'not w~ived but may be drawn from, or charged against, the petitioner's trust account if the petitioner·is an: inmate ·in a;correctional facility;

"· Or. Rev~ Stat. Ann .. §· 138.590(8)(b)., .. " " .. •• ·.. !•

§ 40:23 · Oregon· UPCP~~Oregon Revised Statutes . · . ~§§:138.510to138.680-§ 138.56~When.release of petitioner renders a :pending lproceeding moot . ·

: : Except when the 1 convicted p'ersion: .was· c6riVicted; of ·a misde­llltfanor~ -the r~lease of the convicted . per§ori. shal~ 'riot ca tise a pending UPCPA proceeding to·becoriie moot~ Or;· Rev. Stat. Ann· § 138.560(3). .. .. ' .. ""f ~ .l ·~' . • I • .

§ '40:24· Oregon; UP~PA~Oregon Revised :Statutes .. . • • ~ l. §§ 138.510 tb·l38.680-§ l38.56~Text of;§ 138.560

· i~8.~6o. . Prqc.editr~ · iip6~ flli.hg petiti~~ ~~-- r~lief, . · ·. . (1) A proce~di.ng.for. pos.tconViction· relief .pursuant'to :oRS .

138.510 to 138.680 shall be" commenced by filing a'pet!tion with the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner is imprisoned or, if the petitioner is not ~priso~ed, with the clerk of the 'circuit. coun. for the :c~tfucy iii' which the petitioner's conviction and "sentence: was: tendered. Except as otherwise provided in :ORS 138;590, the .. petitioner must ·pay the fillng.fee estaplished' unqen section e: of this: 2011 act' at th~ .

. . time of aling a 'petition under .this ~ection .. If: the pet~tioner

. prevails, the petitiQ~e~ ~hall recove;r.: :the. fee pursuant . to the . Orego~-_Rµles of .OiviLPrQcedure. The qle;rk of the .cqurt,, in which

·:.the petitjQJ1 is filed .EJh~Lep.ter. and· tile .the petitio~ and pring it . : promptly to the .~ttentio~. of ;s~~h coUrt. A copy of the 1p~tition .. ne,ed .not. be s~rvecj by, pet;itjon_~r: on the defel).dant, bµt, in.lieu th~eof,. tQ.e cl~r~ ,Qf t}le· colµ!t .in. which the petition is filed, shall

·:.imm~4i~tely .forw~~d .. a ·CPPY.P.f.the .petitio~ to ·t~e. Attorµey ... .G~n~r~l~ Qr, of\ler,,attorney ~or the, .defendant• named -in ORS . . -'1S8..t~79: . . ··~ , '; . ' "'. . I: ..

(2) For the ptlrposes of ORS .138.510 to 138.680, a person

551

§ 40:24 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

released on parole-or conditional-pardon shall be.deemed to be - imprisoned in·the: institution. from which the person is so

. released. . . (3) Except when petitioner's conviction was for a misde­meanor, the release of the petitioner from imprisonment during the pendency of proceedings instituted pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall not cause the proceedings to become moot. Such release of petitioner shall not change the venue of the proceedings. out of the circuit ~,0urt in which ~~e proceed­ings. were-c9mmenced and shall not affect the power of such cqurt to transfer. the proceedings as provided in subsection ( 4) r

· .. of this section. ( 4) Whenever the petitioner is imprisoned in a Department

of Corrections institution and the circuit court for the county in / which the petitioner is imprisoned finds that the hearing upon the petition can be more· expeditiously conducted in the county in which· the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the circuit court upon its own motion or ,the motion of a party may order

.. ,the petitioner's. case to. be transferred to the. circuit court for · the county in which .Petitionefs conviction and. sentence were rendered. The cqurt's ·order is. not reviewable by any court of this state. · · ·

(5) When a petitioner who is imprisoned in a Department of Corrections institution is tr~~ferred -to another Department of Corrections instij;ut~on, the circuit court in whi~ a postconvic­tion relief proceeding is pending may deny a motion for a change of venue· to the county· where the petitioner is

. transferred. The court's order is not reviewable by any court of · ·this· state. · i ·

§ 40:25. Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.680-Text of § 138.570

138.570~ Defendant; counsel for defendant ·' If the petitioner is imprisoned, the ·petition shall name as

·defendant the official charged with 'the confinement of petitioner~· If th~ petitioner is not imprisoned, the defendant

··shall be the State of Oregon. Whenever the defendant ·is the superintendent of a Department of Corrections· institution, the Attorney General shall act as the' superintendent's attorney in the proceedings. Whenever the defendant is some 'other official

: : charged with the. confinement of petitioner; the district attorney of the county wherein the petitioner is imprisoned shall be the attorney for the· defendant. Whenever petitioner is not imp#s­oned, counsel for the State of Oregon as defendant shall be the district attorney of the county .in which petitioner's conviction

552

\

OREGON § 40:27

and sentence were rendered .. Whenever the· petitioner is released from imprisonment .. during the pendency of .any proceedings pursuant to ORS ·138.510 to 138.680, the :State of

. Oregon shall be substituted as defendant. Upon such substitu­tion, counsel for the original defendant shall continue to serve as counsel for the substituted defendlitllt. , :

§ 40:26 Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 188.510 to· 188.~80--Text of§ 138.580 .

138.580. Petition The petition shall be certified by the· petitioner. Facts within

the personal knowledge ·of the petitionar and' the authenticity of-all documents and. exhibits included .in or attached to the pe­tition must be sworn to affirmatively as ·true. and correct; The Supreme Court, by rule, may prescribe the form of the certification. The petition·. shall identify the. proceedings in which petitioner w.as 1convicted and any appeU1;1te proceedings thereon, give the date of entry of judgment and .sentence co~phµned of and i<;l;entify any previous postconviction pro~eed-. 'ings that the petitioner has undertaken tp secure a postconvic-tion remedy, whether under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 or "otherwise~ arid. the disposition 'ther~of. The petition shall set

. fcirth specifically the grounds upon which relief is claimed, and shall. state cl~arly' the reli'ef desired. All '.facts: within the ·personaJknowledg~ of tpe · pei{itioner··shall be set forth sepa­rately from the other allegations of fact and shall be certified ·as··provided·in this ·section.·Except as provided in rules,adopted under ORS 1.002, affidavits, records! or -other documentary evi-4ence supporting: th:e.al}egatio:Q.s of th~ pe~ition shall be at-·

:, tached to the. petition~ Argument, citations and discussion of --_~l;lt~otjti.~s .~h~ll, ~~ 9_~~~.ted, fr.o~. th~ P,et~tion but may be , . sub~tted 1in a ,s~parate .me~~.ra:nduµi Q~ law. . ..

§ 40:a7~: Oregon UPCPA~regon·Revised Statutes .... §§-138.510 to 188~680-Text of§ 188~585 ·

§ 138.585. Petit~on for postconvictio:b'. ·relief; request · · r for confidential-jury records' · · (1) A person wh'.o files; ·a petitfoll' for· post~o~viction relief

under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 and who· seeks jury records that are confidential under 'ORS 10.215· must 'either inclUde in the petition a request for access to the coD.fidentiEil records' or file a motiOn in· the: proceedings seeking· access to 'the· confidential records. A motion under this subsection mtlst be filed· not later than 90 days. before th0' hearing d'ate for 'the petition, unless

553

§ 40:27 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

.· the . court allows a later :filing . for good cause shown. The peti­, .tion or motion, and any supporting affiqavit for the petition or · : motion, must.be served on·the trial court: administrator for the

court that entered the judgment of .conviction and on the State Court Administrator. The .request for confidential.records must:

(a) Specify the· purpose· for whfoh the.juey records are sought; and

(b) .:Identify with'.p·articularity the ·relevant jury records sought to ···be -released, incfodihg. the: type and:ftime period of the records. ~ . _ , - . ·n ~

. (2) .. The co~ ,in .the pos.~onvictiQn ~elief: pro~~eding. m.~Y or-; der relea~e. Qf the jury,recqrds.if tl).e co,urt fin$ that: , ..

·! ·.·(a) The jury records sought are likely-to ·produce·evidence _ relevant to-a.claim of a substantial denial 1ofthe petitioner's J rights -unden the .Qonsti~ution of· the United States;' or µnder

· · : , the· Constitution of the State of Oregon, or: both; and· . · : · ·-(b)'iPro.duction ·of the jury ·records ~is\. riot ·'unduly

' .. , .. bbrdensome> · · .·\I .·· .'. · ,~1···~- ~·J ... 1

- . (3). An order under subsection (2) of this ~ec=tioli· ritay. iiiCitii:le, but need not be liniited 'to: ' •." . .. ' ! .: ' ' . c~' ri .

. > (a)· A requir~~~nt th~~t: ~~e P~t.f~ipner P,roY.i:ci~ a~lfa~c~i,:P.~Y­m~Il.t, .to the~· tr1a~ court adm1p.1.f?t~ator. for. the. ,~Qurt .• ~J?.at ente~e,d the )udgment of convfotfon a:µd,. if app;Licabl~~;'tbe

. : ; ~t~~ !P.~urt A~sti:atOr (or t4~ refiSOXlaQ~e cost8'. qf P..r~Y;id-l •; .. ~~:cop1es.~ftheJ~,re9or~; ai:i4 : . . , \.: _~;·1 , i •• :(: ~ .• {b) .Restrictions. on further': disclosure ,of the jnry :r~cords

., including, butnotlimitedto: ·.: 'l,;~ :·: ... '·' -~,-. ,· .;:-.

· · , ' · (A) A requirement that the petitioner return all originals ·. · · and-copies to. the court at 1the conclusion of the proceeding;

".; 1 (B) A tequirement ·that· the Jury ·records m'ay .be: used only for the purpose dfsupporting the1 rpetitfon:for postcbn-viction relief; ·

(C) A prohibition 'again~t distributiriW. the Joey recotdS to a person, who i's: not:-an ·agent: .or <r.eptesentative of the petitioner;-,_ap.ct.: ·' .:;·:,-·-. :. . . . . . ... ,.: ... , ·.:·,. " .. ·

' " ~'" , r I '\ •· .! # ,. \ ,: • _; ! • , t _ t ·' 1. 41. .• "•. , . ·! , 'I ' ( ~ • , • ._,_·. : • :

(D) A prohibit_igi;t ·~mriq~t :opaj~cting 1 ql! attempting to . ~~ntact~t~~_per~~~s~~os~ ~~~s aepe~ 9A 1Fh~ j~ re-. _ cord,s W1f~o~t. ~Jle~1fic: au,t~pz:izatio~ of .the. c9~._ · i,

. {4) 'fl.l:e;t.ri~d:-;coµrt _aclniipistrator for.the. CQµ# t~a~ .en~ei;ed the jU<igment:of conyiction:OJ;' the~.State poq11_Administr~~or. ~ay iµterven~ at any, t4ne .. as ~ :r;natter qf tjgP,.t a~ tp ~y issues relating to ~~ r~l~ase .o(jury .reco~ds, unqer tpj,s se~tiop.... . . : , (5) The procedure established by this section is. the exclusive

554

I

r

OREGON I' i § 40:29

means for compelling production of confidential jury xecol!ds. a~ evidence in postconviction relief proceedings. Th~ procedure established by ORS 10.275 is the exclusive means for compel­ling production of confidential jury records as evidence relevant to a :~halleng~ tp a- jµry: panel .under. ORS .136.005. or ORCP 57A. Added by Laws 2011, c. 308, § 2, eff. June 9, 2011.

• ~I • •

§ 40:28 Or~gon UPCPA~regiln Re~$~d:$~atute~, .·· : · §§ 138.510 to· ~3~.~~0:-:-§ ,~~8.p9.~Right to co~sel

There is a right to· counsel·1in Oregon UPCPAproceedings. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.590(2) to G5),.(9) (if a petitioner who has been sei;itenced to death qualifies for the appointmenti of counsel .under t~s section, but rejects the appointment; ~the: court· shall determi.ne, after -~ ,hearing if necessary,. ~hether the petitioner rejected the offer of ,counsel and. made tbe decision. with an understanding Qf:its-Iegal consequences; the. court shall make,_ap­propri~te· findings .on the record; the .circuit. court shal~. appoint suitaple. counsel to represent .petitione.r; ,couns.el .so. appoip.ted s}lalLrepresent petition~r . .throughout the -proeeediµg~ .in the circltit .court; if counsel appointed by th~ circuit.; court detenajnes that· th~ ·petition ~s filed. by p~titioner i$_ de_fective, either iµ. form or· in substance, or both,. co~.el-may move to ~end th~ petition mtliin .15 days following counsel's ~ppoiritµient, or within a fµr­ther .. petiod as the court may allqw; -th,~ .am.endmen~ shall be permitted•as of right at any thne <;luring thi$ periocJ; notwithstand­ing.-any _Qther pJ"ovision ·of the UPCPA, _.a,:c.o.w;t m~y .. not appoint as counsel for. a: petitioner who .ha$ ·beeri sentenced, to 4eath a cpunsel who· previously .-J!epres_e:nted ,the :petitiop.er. ~t. trial .or. on automatic and direct re:viewjn the ~ase resulting _in thei d~~th sentence unless the petitioner aad the .counsel expi;"essly request cont~~µed, rep~esentation). However, under. ,.a 1 s.~~ute enaqted in 1997, .a ~urt. is authorizeq tQ ~E!qµire a: postAA;nyictiQn petitioner to. repay costs of, a .. C01:Jr~. ,appQtµted: ~ttorney, wP..e;re ,the. postcon­vic~i9~ petition w~sifiled.after J~n. ~' ~998 ... ,0r .. R~v~.·s.tat.Ann. §~5~.505(1).... •·.. '. . .. !" •• ,_,,:

• ' t '. j ' ' • '

§ 40:29 Oregon 'UPCPA.:_Oregon Revised Statute~· · ·; .§§ 138.510- t~ 138.680-§ 138.590-Amendlnent. of

· · etition ·· :. , · _· ·),: : ... ·:. · · ,;. '· · · ·. ... . , ... P . ; _.. ~ ! J 1 : : • i .. 11 ~ • : • . • . • •• • • ?-.

·If counsel, appo~nted to:. represe:µt the petitioner determines that .the ·-petition as filed by petitioner js defec~ve, eithe;r dn· form or in substance, or both,,counsel·may.move to:amend the .petition within 15 days following"·counsers appointµient,;br within a;fur­ther period as the court may allow. The1amendment .shalt be

555

·§·40:29 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

,permitted as of. right -at any .time· duriJ1g this period. Or. Rev. Stat~- Ann. § 138.590(5). . '

§ 40:30· Oregon UPCPA~Oregon· Revised Statutes · §§ 138.510 to 138.680.-:-§· 138~590--Text of § 138.590

138.590. Indigent peti~ioner (1) Any petitioner who is unable to pay the expenses of a

proceedi~g pu.r~~ant to. ORS 138.510 to 138.680 or to employ I sui~able .counsel poss~ssing skills and experi,en~e comriiensurate with the nature of the'convictiOn and complexity of the case for the proceeding may proceed as a financially eligible person pur­suant to this section upon order of the circuit court in which the petition is ·filed. ·

(2) 'If the· petitioner wishes to proceed as a financially·eligible person, the person· shall file with the. petition an affidavit· stat-

=-'ing inability to pay the expenses of a proceeding ·pursuant- to ORS 13R510 to- 138.680, including, but not.1.inlitedi to, the filing fee ·required· by ORS 138.560, or to employ suitable counsel-for such a proceeding~ The affidavit shall contain a brief statement of· the petitioner's asset~ and liabilities and income· during· t~e previous year. If the circUit court is satisfied· -that the petitioner is-unable to pay such expenses-or to.employ suitable counsel, it

\ shall order that. the- p~titioner. proceed as a financially eligible person. If the court ·finds that· a petitioner who has ·been

·sentenced to death is not- competent to· decide whether to ac­cept ·or rejeGt t~e appointment ·of ·counsel, .the court shall ap­

. point counsel to· represent·· the petitioner. :However, when a circuit court orders petitioner's case ,transferred to another 'circuit court ·as provided hf ORS: 113-8.560 (4),'the matter ·of petitioner's ·proceeding as a financially eligible person shall be

• - determined by the latter court. · ' · ··; (3) If a petitioner who has been sentenced to· death qualifies

' for the· appointment of counsel under this section but rejects the appointment, the court shall· determine~ after a hearing if =necessary, whether the petitfoner rejected the offer of couns'el and made the decision with an understanding of its legal consequences. The court shall make apprqpriate findings on the record-. · ' ·- ·' · · ! - ·

( 4} in the order to 'proceed as ~· finaricfally eli~ble person, the circuit court shall appoint suitable counsel to ·represent petitioner. Counsel so appointed shall represent petitioner throughout. the· proceedings in the circuit: court·.· The court may ·not substitute one··appointed-counselfor another except pursu-

. · ant to. the policies,· procedures, standards and guidelines of the Public Defense Services Co~ission. · · · : ·

556

OREGON § 40:30

(5) If coU1lsel appointed by the circuit court· determines that the petition as filed by petitioner. is defective, either in form or in substance, or ·both, cou~el. may lll:OVe to amend the petition within 15 days following cou~sel's appointment, or. within a further period as th~ court may allow. The amendment shall ·be permitted as of right at any time during this periQd. If ~p­pointed counsel believes that the original petition ·cannot be construed to state a ground for relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680, and·cannot be amended to state a ground for relief, counsel shall, in .lieu of 'moving to amend the petition, inform the petitioner and notify the circuit court of counsel's belief by filing all: affidavit st~ting the belief and the reasons therefor with the clerk of the circwt court. This ·affidavit does not con­stitute a ground for denying the petition prior to a .hearing upon its sufficiency; but the. circuit. court may consider-the affi­davit in deciding·upon the sufficiency of the petition at the hearing.. · . · i ..

(6) When a· petitioner'·.has been· ordered to· proceed as a financially eligible person, the expenses which· are necessary for· .the proceedings upon the petition: in the . circuit . court and the .compensation to appointed. counsel for petitioner as

. prov.ided in this subsection shall be pajd. by the public. defense services executive director fr9m funds ,available for the purpps~.; At the conclus~on of proceediµgs on a petiti.on p~suant to ORS

, .. '.138.510. to 138.6eo,; the public defense services ex~cutive direc­tor shall determine . and pay,, as provided 1 by . th~ po~icie~, procedures, standards .~nd. guidel~n.es of the. Pub~c Pefe~se

. : Servic~s Q.ommiss~on, ,the .amount of expenses. of p,~titioner and .. compensation for the· ser:vipes ·of' appointe~. co.unsel in· the

proceedings in the circuit coUrt. . . (7) If th~ public defense sem~es executive' director denies, in

whole or in part, ,e,Xpens.es ·,a'n'd .. co,mpe~s~#Q.Il S'\11;>,mitte.<f for review and pa'.Yment; the person who ·~fobmitted tlie payment reque~t ~ay appeal th:e decision tp the' presiding j~dge,-C)f the circuit coUrt. The presiding j~dg~ .·or the designee of the presid­ing, judge shall review fhe .public defense services. executive director's decision for abuse of discretion. Th'e decision of the presiding judge or the designee of the presiding judge. is finat' .

. (8) (a) When a eetitioner has.been authorized· to proceed as . a ~nancially elig;ible person;.a~l court fees in the circ~t.c?~; except for the filing fee required by ORS 138.560, are wmved.

· (b) When a petitioner is.' allowed to file a petition withbut payment of the fee required· by ORS 138.560 due to i:hability to pay; the fee is not waived but may be drawn from, or charged against, the petitioner's trust account if' the peti­tioner is an inmate in a correctional facility.

557

§ 40:30 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

._, (9)•Notwithstanding .any other 'provision of this chapter, a court ma:t·riot appoint as counsel· for, a petitioner who: has been sentenced 'to· death a counsel· who previo\isly represented· the petitioner at trlal or on automatfo~aiid direct reyiew in·the' case

· ·resulti~g i~ ·th~,'deat~ sentenc~ _unless the ~}ietitforier an.a the counser expressly ·req\test continued reprf;)s~n~ation .. : : "". ' ., '

' J. - _; ', • '• ' , . .' i ' ' 1 !

'. . I• I ;'.· ."i.

§ 40:31 . Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes• . . : §§'138.510to·138.68~§'138.590--Right.to :.

,. · ·~ counsel--Case·law ·; : J ·

.. For ~ase'J~w: on;_the right to cQ:unsel in.Or~gQ\l ·uPOPA. pr~~eed­ings, see, e.g., Knox v; Noot~, 244 .Or.-App. 57, 260. P.3d 562 (2011) (triaLcourt's ·refusal to. appoint .new counsel to. represent defendant:in··postconviction "proceedings after,_·it.·granted ap­pointed counsel's motion to withdr~w was not compelled by.need for orderly and .efficient judicial process;. and thus, was abuse of discretion); Hart·:v~ .Hill, 2009 WL 690634 (D.·Or.: 2009) '(in~his pro se ·supplemental. response; . petitioner argues that the Jailure to appoint 'suitable; counsel' '.under: -.O.R.S. 138.590(4) I constitutes cause·'to excuse .. ·his procedural defRult; this"argument:fails beca..us.e· only· the coiis'titutional ;denial of 1eff'ective assistance· of counsel. ·constitutes cause; suffi~'lent to excuse a procedural default); Bates ·v~" C~erniak', 187 Or. App. ;8, 66 P.Sd ~19 (2003) (plaintiff filed .habeas corpus ·petition in µial court raising invol­untary· ~lty plea claim;· th'.e trial- court disniissed the habeas :pe­tition,· bp. _th~ 'gi°o~~ ~h~t o*l~ t~,e UJ>CPl\ ~~y be used to ·ch.al­lenge' the lawfulness· 'of a convi;~~on.r t~e tri~l court re~used to treat th~ habeas petition as a .petitichl' fo~· po'stconVictio'n ·relief Wider 'the tJPCl> A;· 'plaintiff cailliot;:succee<f iir hi'S' argull1ent that the tri8.I ~urt. committed ·~!Tor. appareht onth'e face of the' record i~: £~~~ipgj6' aP,p~~I)~' CQ~sel ·~o: I rep~esent ~i·&;:pla.iriti~ ar~es t~~t,}md~tOr .. ~~v., Stat1 A.µµ~ 1 ~ ia.~.~90(4), ~h~ t;ial ~ourt.~:w~s requir~;d.to app~\~~ counsel. f~(Iµ~ Ei~d.tha~ t~e ~nal co.urt'~,f~il­ure t9 i;~~p6n4 to t}le mandate of the statute ~~ ~rror appar~nt 'on the reccrrcl;',howev:er, th~~tri~l.cotn1 was under n~,legal obligation to convetj; plaintftrs p~tition ~or a.:writ pf hahe.as corpu's into a peti~ion:fo~_postco~\tl~~on ~ellef; it_follows .. tba~ th~ pr~iajse to his ~_rgqµi.ent, that he filed.~: p~titjon for ·PQStconViictiOn reli_ef, is lac;~g. and\ that no oblig~t~1;1unde~§138.~90(4), was ever trig­gered.; .trial cpQrt~ 'are n~t, req¢i:ed ~~ ~onv~rt . a petition ~~r ha­beas. ~rpus into a petition for _postcori'1ction relief on theit own initiative). . '. •. 'l . ; . · · · - ·

.. '

558

OREGON §'40:36

§40:82 Oregon:UPCPA~Oregon·Revised·Statutes ·. :. :, .. . ;)·;.§§·188.510 to 188.680-§.138.610-Leave to · .. _ ... ·

withdraw petitiOn . ·. :-. • ; ;, ·,· . . , · .. ,·1.:

:-; ·The·court;may gr$t leav~,.at any time.prior to entcy-~f judg­m'.ent, ~o withdraw the"petition for .postccfhvictfon'reli~f~ O'r~ Rev. Stat. Ann.·§ 138.610.' .: ;; ., 1 • · · :c · · · ~~: · · ·

§ 40:33 · Oregon UPCPA~Oregoii Revised Stathtes' : ·: • .: ; , :§§ 138.510 to 188•680-§188.610--Respoildent has

· 8~ days ~o respond · . . · i • ' ·

• : • J • ' , ~ • ~ •• :~- ·: 1_~ : •• 1 · . , \ . · r .. · _ ~ : : , -

. Within.. 30 ,clays aftei;;.the .~oc~~ting Q( the petit~on, or within any further time the .court m~y .fix, the respondent. shall respond by demurrer, answ.er or motion; and .no further pleadings shall be filed except asthecourt may order. Or .. Rev. Stat.'Ann~ § 138.610.

- .-§ 40:84 Oregon UPCPA~regon RevisedStatutes · ·

· , . · · §§: 138.510 to 138.680-§ 138.610-Text ;of§ 138.610 138.610 •. Pleadings . , · · " .... ·

·: i 1

.· Witltjµ~ 'ad ~~YB. Et-ft~.~ 'tne 4oc~etin~· ~f the pe~itio_n, or' ~thin any further time the court may fix,, tlie ·defendant :sh~l. re$pond

.. ~Y demurrer, .a.11-swer ,o~ ~oti()n .. Np further pleaqiiig~:i.-shB;ll be . ; filed except as. the: c;ourt tµa:f:~ o.:rCier.' The co.ui-t may grant leave,

at any time prior to entry of judgment, to Withdraw the petition. The court may ~ake appropriate orde~s as to the amendment of the petitio_n 'cir. any/other _pleadi~g~ -'dr· as to ~he<filing"of fur~ ther pleadings~ or ~as to extending-the tinle . of the'. filing of any pleading other than the original petition. . ..

. J j. ~ . ~ 1 ' ' I ' . :.·. "'

§·140:35 Oregon UPCPA~Oregon Revised· Statutes · · · i · · ; §§l88.510·to·188;6~ext·of § 188.615 1

. 188~6\5~1-., . P~()cee~g~; f9r'l16~t~~o .. '7icti~n reµef; I

· · · disclosure of witness;· conta(,t information; ·ad-1 • • .• ditio#Jµ tUsclos)lres · ·. · ···· .· · · · ·

(1) .In .any .prqceeding .. fQr. p9s~cQ.I).victio.n. re~iefp~;i;-s~ant. to . ORS 138.qlO to, 138,.68Q;, .. a party. shall p~ovide to~: the o~her

pl;lrj;y, ,upon· writte~. reqµe$t;Qf;t~e.·,oth~r party or ail. order of the court, the identity of.~q.d,,-efC~Pt~s: p~ovided)n subse·ction

1 (5) of this sectiC?n, the c~nt~c~ iµfQpn~~ion ,for any person who· . i~ a pp~entia.~ 'W,it~es~~ ~w~etlier .the' :person m~y Q.e· c~dl~d to tes~o/. at the pro~eedi~~ -<!~!p~o~<;le s~~rn '"7ri~te~ te~~~ony.

~ ..... (2)·. Unle$s oth~nv.ise.,ord~re4 ~by th~. court, the:. disclo$ure .. reqµh-e_Q.: :by sub1s~ctio.n (jl), of thi_s sectio~ concerning any wit­

ness that a party may· use at the proceeding to present eyi-

559

§'.40:35 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

dence under ORS 40.410·, .-40.415 or 40.42·0.. must be· ac­companied by. a written report that--is. prepared and signed by the witness. The report must contain:-, ·(a) A complete statement of all opinions the. witness : intends tQ assert as an expert. witness;. and . .

I • .

(b) The data or other information considereP. by the wit-ness in forming the opinions. (3) The disclosures requ4"ed by subsectiQns (1) and (2) of this

s_ectio~ must be mad~ according. to timelines estal;>lished by the court in each case. . . . .. .

(4) Upon being apprised of any.breach of the duty imposed under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, and after taking

' into account the reason; if any,- for the breach and the· preju­"dice~ if-any, to the other party, the court may grant a continu­ance, refuse to permit a witness not properly disclosed from testifying, refuse to receive in evidence the material not disclosed, impose costs incurred by the other party as a result of the breach ·or enter such other. order as . the . court considers appropriate. . .· . , .

(5) Unless ordered by the court, the defendant shail not dis­,· close to t~e petitioner any personal identifiers, as defined in

ORS 135.815, of the victim. · · ' · (6) ·upon.the request o(either party, the court may enter a

protective order as pro~~e~ in ORS 135.873.i . ·

. . .. § 40:36 Oregon UPCPA-O~egon Revised Statutes

§§ 18~.510 to 188~680-Text of § 188.620 188.620. Hearing ·

(1) After the response of the defendant to the petition, the court shall proceed to a. hearing on the issues ra_ised. If' the defendant's response is by _qemurrerpr motion r¢sing solely is­sues of law, _the circuit cou~ need not order that .. petitioner be presen~ at' such hearing, as long ~- petitio~er is represented at

·the hearing by counsel. At the hearing upon issues raised by any othe:r response, the circuit court shall order that petitioner be pr~sent. Whenever the, coUrt orgers that· petitioner be pre­sent at the hearing, the court tnay order that petitioner appear by telephone ·or other communication device as provided in ORS 138.622 rather than in·person. :

(2) If the petition ·states a! grotind·for re~ef, ·the court shall decide the issues raised and may receive proof by affidavits; de­positions, oral testimony or other competent evidence. The burden of proof of facts alleged ~n the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish; such: facts :by a: preponderance of the evidence. ·

560

OREGON § 40:39

§.40:37.; __ Oregon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes · i .§§' 138.510 to 138.680-Text of § 138.622·

138.622. : Petition for r~Jief For.the purpose·of a court· appearance 'under ORS 138.510 to

138.680, the court may approve the appearance of the 'parties, . : counsel for the.parties or witnesses by telephone or other com­

munication device approved-. by the court .. However, the court may not approve the appearance of the· petitioner or (::Ounsel for the,petitioner by telephone or other communication device un­less the facilities use<;l enable the· petitiOner to const?-lt priyately with the petitioner's counsel. during the_proceedi~gs. r .

. '- .. . ' ')

§ 40:38 O~egon UPCPA-Oregon Revised Statutes . §§ 138.510 to. 138.6.86--Text. of § 138.630 .

138.630 •.. Evidence of ~vents o~curring at trial.· of p~titioner

· In ·a proceeding pursu~nt to ORS 138.510 'to 138.680; events . occurring at the trial. of. p~titio~er may. be shown' ,by a duly authenticated transcript, record or portion· thereof. If such transcript or record cannot be produced, the affidavit of the judge who presided at the trial setting_forth the facts· occurring at the trial shall be admissible' in evidenc·e when· relevant.

: Wheri necessary to establish any· ground for relief spe.cified. in ORS 138.530, the petitioner may allege and prove matters in contradiction o( the record of the trial of the petitioner. When the record is··so contradicted,·the defendant may introduce in ·evidence any evidertce which was adnlitted' in evidence at the trial to support the contradicted matter an'd may call witnesses

... whose .. testim.ony at such _trial supported the c9_ntradicted matter. ·Whenever such evidenc~ or .sµch witn~sses»cannot be

; produced by defendant.for:~my.r~ason w~9h is.;suffi.cie~t in the opiiµon of the court, such· ,parts of the duly autbentic~ted rec-

. ord of the trjal as support the contradict~d; matter may be introduced in_ ~vidence 'Qy the defendant. Aiduly authentic~ted r~cord. of ~he testimo:t?-Y ,c;>f any '¥itness at the ttj.al may be intro~"lfoec;l in evidence t.Q inipeach the· ~reqibility ;of any testimony by the same witness in the ·heanilg upon the P~.t~tion .

. (. § ~0:39, -Qr~g(>n UPCPAJ'Or~gQn Revised Statutes ·

· §§ 138.510 to.138.680-Text of:§ 138.640 . i _ . ,_ • • . ,. ,. I · ' . • • •• ~ '

· 188.640. Judgment · '(1) After· deciding the issues raised in ·the· proceeding, the

court shall enter a judgment denying the petition_ or 'granting "·the appropriate relief. The-} judgment niay include orders as

561

§'40:39 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

· provided in ORS· 138.52Q. Th~ judgment must cl.early state t~ grounds on.,which the cause-was: determined,; and:·whether a

. state or federal question was pr~~enteq-.and de~4ed. ~ .: .. ~ t . ·

, ·: :(2) If t}i~ court grants th~1 .Peijtioner relief, t~e. jµ~gment is not .e~force~ble in th_e peijtioner's.f~y~r :u.ntil: . ·,, ,· -· : ~.

(a)· ·The petitioner causes a. ~ertified :copy :of the judgment ' to be entered in the circuit. court .in· which. the petitioner's

·conviction and-sentence were rendered; and··· ; .. · · ·:. · .·-: · ··: (b); ;The petitib#er serv~.~· fl )cert,ified. cc;>p1 ~f'th~ jqdg#ient

'ori. 'the ~strict ~tto~~y ~f.the c.ounty in~ whicl:l th~ p,etitioner's conviction ·and-sentence were rendered~ · · · · ·

§ 40:40 't>regoii Ui?CPA~Oregon, lteyi,sed St~tlite.s .. · ·;, · · · . §§_ 1~8.610 'to 138.680-§ 138~660-Judginent .

lentered .. by court--'Eitherparty may .. appealf' :_. ' ....

E~t}.le~ the petitioner o:r:the stat~ .may appe~l.t~e judgment gr8Pti;ng I pr d~iiying relief to the O~egb,;n Qourt. of Appeals Within 30 kdays:'af~er-·:e·ntry o~ th~t 'Judginent. ,Or. Rev. ~t.~t·: Ann. § 138.650; see also Or .. ~ev~ Stat. Ann~,§ 2.516; Or. Rev. Stat. Ann:§ ).38 .. 071(1). .. .. :; . - . ; : '.' . ' ' ' ·. , ~e c~nvict~d perspn has· a tight ~<? ~ounsel-'o~ t~e appe~l· tt,c;>m the jµdgme~t· gra~ting or denyi~g feli~f. Or. Rev. ~tat. Ann. § 138.500(1). .,< · i , , ',. . . • · ;.

§ 4(_):41 .. Oregon UPCf~:.....orego~:~evised St~tutes .· ... :_. ; : , HJ3~.5~Q. to 13~.6~<>;§ 1~8.650-~xt,.of § 1:3~.~50

138.650.:. Appeal·:: · : "· '., .1

(1) · Either the petitioner or· the defendant may ;appeal to the · ·Court· of ~ppealS :within 30 days :after the· entry of a judgment .. .-.·on'. a :petition·pursuant to:.pRS 138.5iO to;138.680. ;The manner -

·· · of taking the.: appeal arid the· saope:·of· review by the Court· of . Appeal~ and t~e~Suprem~ Court :shall be the ·same· as·that ·, :'prGVided by 18.w~for appeals in criininal actions, except that: . ,: .. : ·:(a) The pial ·court' Diay proviqe th~tjth.e tr._anscript contain

only s1:1ch eVidence· as ·may ·be material to the decisiOn of the : · ·appeal;' an:a· "··'' · · ... · . : · .. ' ·· " :· ·

(b) With respect. to ORS 138.~08~ (1), if petitioner appeals, petitioher·sfotll cause the -~otic~'_of·appeal ;to·be·~e~ed ·on·the attorney for. defendant, -arid, if aefendant. appeals~ "defendant shall cause the notice of appea~ to be .serv.~d .. Qn the ~ttoroey

. (?r .. P.~~i~~oner ;or, .if petitioner)1as .. ~o. ~t1tor~~y ,o(record, on . , . i petitioner ... ; · . . .. ; , · ~ · . ; : i r • .. I i : ._ ,

(2) (a) Upon motion of the. petitioner;. the Q.ourt .o,fApp~als

562

I

\

OREGON' §:40:42

,.·:.shall grant the.petitioner.leave toifile a notice .. of appeal after · the time limit described in subsection (1) of this section .if:· • ' - .. ' . ' i . . . ' . . .... ' ~ •. . .. . < - ' ' • ' ••

· · · ~: '.;(A) The petitioner, .by .clear. and.· convincing evidence, shows that the failure to file a timely notice of app~al is not attributable to the petitioner personally; and

(B) The. peti.~ioner slwws. a ~olorabl~ !claim of error in the pro.~1~.din~ from.·\y~ch· .~~~ ~pJ>eal js ~a~~n.· ·.· . · (b) The request· for leave to file a notice of appeal after the

tiilie' limit described· i:h siibsectioii (1) of this section shall be filed no later than 90 days after entry of.the judgment from

. ·\,,which. th.e petitioner ·seeks. to appeal and shall be ac-_companied by the notice of· atppeal sought to be .filed. A request for leave ·under ,this.subsection may be filed. by mail.

. ~ .'rhe d,ate-o{filing shaU ·b~ the date.of mailing if.the request is . _ m~ed as. proYi:ded .in· QllS l~ .. 26Q~ : . . ,

(c) The Court of Appeals may not grant- relief• under, this :. : , ~ubs~c~iq~ .. ui;iles~ 1.the ··~~f~Jil,da~t, ,ha~ r~cei"."~4 ne>:t~ce ~f and

a~. oppo~1m;tjty t.o:r~spp~c;l to .. ~~ .. petiiion~r'.~ re.quest f~:r,;relief. : .(3) .An .. appe.al·:l.JD4~r .th~~ ijectio.:µ ~akEm· by the defendant stays the effect of t~~ judgmen~ .. If. tJie. petiijo~er i~ .inc:arGer­ated, the trial court ~ay stay. the petiti~ner's s.entenc~ penqmg the defendant's appeal and order conditional release or security release, in ac~o~dance "1.th ORS l35 .. 2SO to .135.290, only if: .

· (a)' Tlie·. 'postc.on:{rfotil>n: -~oliit'~ .. jJdgment -~ac~t~·~ tnijhdg-ment of corivicti6n or·· rEf'duces tlie' sentence. or sentences imposed ·upori conVictiori{~ "•.r,;_ .. ; · 1 : • ·' ~~); :'. \:\ '· .. ,:.'> ·. -. ! ·

(b) The petitioner has compl~ted' ~ny other sentence of . · ·incarceration to which the· petitioner is subject; and . . . ;_

~' . (c) Tlie petitforier 'otherwi~e ~oul~ be entitl~d. tcf ·immedi-·' ~te. relea,se from 'iricarcera~on under •the,· coilrt's judgment:

: . l ' ' '\ t • • ' , 'i ,-~'. I ~ · ' '· . · . · : • ,,~.:

§ 49~4~·. ' Oregon. eyc~i\~Qr~gop.J;tevi.se~ st~tti.te~ ( , · · · ··. §§ 138.510to13S.G8~Text' of§ 138~660. · .L, ··'.·· • .. 1 i! ~ ·': .•. ., ·~·._!-:.!'- "; \·jf' ;·t:~ :~ (' ':.i ! . :, ~ ' .. •"t. (. ,,./ . •

• 1 138.6~0· s~~.~~tio~.o(j~~gment; dismi~sal · ·. , . . ' of app_~.aJ. ~: , 1,, . . 1 : , • , • : , • • • ~. • - -= .

In reviewing the judgment of the circuit :cpurtjn .a .proceed­ing pursuant. to ORS 138.510 to 138.680, the Court of App-eals on its o~n motion ~9i~. BH IJ?-O~i~~ Pf. ~(}S~~pd;n~ .W,aY. sun.upaiJl! affirm, aft~r. ·su~m1$~0fi: .~.f.tlie-~12pellani's ,bq.ef'.aµ.d w1tliout submission·· of 'the respondent's· brief, 'the judgfu.ent"'·on appeal without oral argument if it finds that no. substantial. question

... of law.is presented,by; the appeal. Notwithstanding;ORS 2.570, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals may de_ny .. or, .Jf~ the

563

§ 40:42 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

petitioner does not oppose the motion; grant a. respondent's mo­tion for suinmary affirinatfon. A disnlissal of the appeal under this section shall constitute. a decision upon the merits of the appeal.

§ 40:43 Oregon UPCPA~Oregon Revised Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.68()-..:-Text of§ 138.665

: § 1.38.665. Post-conviction ~elief proceeding;judgment or order · · · ·

(1) ·Upon joint motion of the !parties to an appeal in a post­conviction relief proceeding, the court may vacate the judgment

1 or order from which ·the appeal was taken and· remand the · matter to the circuit court to rec~nsider the judgment or order.

Upon remand, the circuit· court ·shall have jurisdiction to enter a revised judgment or o,:der. ·

(2) .After entcy of a modified judgment· or :order· on reconsid­. eration, or upon reentry of the ;original judgment' ot order, ei­ther party may appeal in the same time· and ·manner· as an ap­

. peal from the original .1 udgment or order: Added b~ Laws 2015, c. 12, § 1, eff. Jan. i, 201~. .. ..::. . ·-

' " : '.. . . . I '" .

§ 40:4• .. Oregon UPCPA-Orego~ ll~vised Statutes . §§ 138.510 to 138.68~Text of § 188.670.

J • .. ' l . • . ~ • ~ ' • ' ' J • •

188.670. New trial; admissibility .of testimony of. wit· .ness at first t~al : . .

1 i .

In the event that a new :frial is ordered as· the relief granted in a proce~9ing pursuant.w ORS 138.5io .to 138.680, a properly av.thenticated . transcrip~ of testimony in .the first trial m~y b~ introduced iil evidence to supply the testimony of any witness at the first_ trial who has. si.nc~ died or who. cannot be pro4uced at the new'trialfor other· sufficieiit'cause. Such transcript shall not be a~missible in any' 'otlier··respect,' ·except that the transcript of festimc>ny· of a witness at· the·; first trial may- be used at the new trial to impeach the testimt>ny at the new trial by the same witness ... ·. · ·" ·,,, · 1 ... ~ 1 : •

1,: .... ,,·· .

§ 49,:45 · 1

• Oreg~J1. ~CPA: . 9,r~goil: ~yi,~d Statut~s §§ 1~8.51~ tq. 138 •. 680-Te~ ~t§ 188.680 :

138.680. · Short. title · i ·.: ·ORS 138.5·10'to 138.680 may be cited as the Post-Conviction · ·Hearing Act. ~ · ·

564

/

/

\

OREGON: §·40:46

§ 40:46 Oregon UPCPA~Oregon Revised.Statutes §§ 138.510 to 138.680-Case .Jaw . · : ·

For case law on the Or~gon U~.QPA; ·see,' e.g., <)r~en, ·v .. Franke, 357 Or. 301, 31?0 P.3d 188 (20.15) (wh~e the.effect ofinadequ~~ !lSSif;ltance of counsel o.n th~.out~ine Qf a jutjr, trial.is at ~ssue, it is inappropria,te to us.e a "Pr.obability". standard. fo:r; a'3sessing prejudice; instead·,· because ~any diffe~ent factors Han a:ffe·ct the butcome of a jury trial, in' that. settjng~: the te~~ehcy to affect the outc9me standard demands' mo!~ than mere possibi~ty; but less than· probability; the issue· is· whether' trial counsel's acts'. or omis• sfons "could have tended to affect'' the outcome of the case); Pereida­A/,bd ·v. Coursey, 356 Or. 654, 342 P.Sd 70 (2015) (when the state argues . that the post-conviction:;.relief petitioner~s trial counsel made a reasonable tactical choice, rather· than provided inade­quate 'assistance ·of counsel, that argument does not shift the burden of production and proof; rather~· the burden of production and proof on the inadequate· assistance claim remains with the petitioner); ·Johnson· v. Prem·o, 355 Or. 866, 333 P.3d 288 (2014) (a petitioner ·is entitled to file a motion in his or her own name when the petitioner has a good faith belief that counsel· lacks, or is failing to exercise, the. skills, and. experience commensurate with the nature of the conviction and, complexity of the case); Ogle v. Nooth, · 355 Or. 570, 330 P.3d 572 (2014) (petitiener :was reqtiired to . attach materials. to petition for· post-conviction relief that were sufficient to aid or advance .each allegation :in petition under statute requiring that petitioner attach "affidavits; records, or other documentary evidence" to petition, such that, if offered at.hearing in admissible form and if true,. contents ·of attach­ments would permit' court to rule for petitioner; plain meaning or words used·in statute indicated that attachments were·required to be relevant to and ·address each element of. each claim that ·petitioner· undertook to prove,. and legislature did ·not impose stringent requirement that attachments prove allegations of peti­tion; post-conviction ·court's dismissal of petitfoner's claims for relief based on· ineffective assistance of counsel that were not suf­ficiently supported by attachments to petition· was authorized remedy;· court· appointed counsel for petitioner, state's· response to. petition raised issue· of law~ riamely the sufficiency of .material at­tached to petition, and sought dismissal of petition, and· ·court held hearing, considered record and arguments of counsel, decided legal issue in ·state's favor, and dismissed petition); Datt v. Hill, 34 7 ·Or. 672, 227 P.3d 714 (2010) requires that a- postcon­viction trial· court clearly state· the grounds on which: the cause was determined; a court 'does -not base its determination of a cause· on the ·"types of ·claims?' that it·resolves; .rather, a· court bases its determination on the facts- that it finds , to be true and

565 /.

§ 40:48 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

the legal ":Cahclusions · thati it .dr.aws. from those ·facts;. :drafters· of the 1955 Uniform Post~Convietion Procedure Act, frbm which the PCHA .w.a~ .ta,~en, intende .. Q., -t.h:at ~ .. Pq,stcpn:victio.)l .. tria~ c9urt ~~c\~~e in ~q.~· grou~ds f9r d,·<;t~~~io~.4en)7ing a.c~~ for_.po~tcon: viction rehef' sufficient information to . enable a federal· court to determine' ~~etli~r th~. demiti ·was )>ased .'qn. a petitioner's. failure to comp,ly \lijth;. st'a~e procedural r~_qufre1~ents, . or )vhe~her . ~qe petiti91).er had ·approptjately.

1

uti"ttz~d sta~ P.rocedure's b~~ faile4 · tQ',prove th~ -~erits, o(tq~ fe9~r~l .c;laim asserted;. ~oinpliance ~~h

proyision of PCHA .. reqµitjng · t~~t,. the .. postconvfotfon'.judgment ·clearly sta~~ ~~e .. ·grouri.4s_'.ori \ylilcµ th~ ·:caqse. \ya~· (;l,~t~.rmi#ea doe~ not: tµ.rn .on w~eth~r postcqpviction juclgI)lent, pro~d~s infor­µiati()I). sutficient. ;for Jµdicial; :review; a,.j~dgment . denyipg .claims for.,postco11viction relief niust, .at a iµinimum: . .(1). ~de.µtify .the claims .for relief that the co.urt f!_onsidered and make ·$eparat~ rul­ings on each claim;, (2} declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial. is based. on a petitioner's, .fail~e ·to utilize .or ·follow available state procedures. or a failure. to establish· the· merits of the claim; .. and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief appar~ ent; if. .. postconviction, trial· courts use standardized forms to. rec­ord their decisions, .they: must contain -all the information required by provision of PCHA ;requiring that postconviction judgment clearly state the grounds on .which the cause was determined; by 'referring to .. the petiµon and· stating that all questions were '.pre­sented and :decid~d, postconviction trial court satisfied statutory requirement that it identify the claims for .relief that it .considered and· make: separate rulings· on eachi.clailll; by stating. that it denied relief based on· a failure! of .proof, pos:tconviction _trial court satis·fied statutory· requirement thatJt declare,. ,with :regard to each -claim, whether .the,denial was based :on a petitioner's failure to . utilize. or: ;follow available state procedures· or a failure to, es­tablish the ;merits ofthe·claim; by_ failing. to indicate, as to both of petitioner's cl~s of-ineffective·assistance of counsel, whether petitioner failed. to. prov.e inadequacy, .prejudice, o~. both, judg­ment denying. postconviction relief did not make . the legal bases for denial .of relief appi;trent and. did. not satisfy the :-statutory require~ents);r Smith v., Bal<;f,win, ~510 F.3d• 1127 (9th Cir.: 2007) (Smith's .claims -.are. :procedurally defaulted1 for federal habeas purposes. because.'° Oregon's: :time limi~ for ~g petitions j for post.~ conviction. ;relief bar ,Smith from . returning. to state .. court' :·to exhaust.his r~medies); Ramirez .. v; State, 214 Or. App .. 400; 164 F.3d 1221 (2007) (alien defendant waived claim. on ~appeal from denial 0£ postconviction relief that counsel was ineffective for fail~ ure ,to. advo.cate for sentence less than -365 days in order to obtain cancellatio.n: of removi;tl, where, claim. :was· qualitatively different than one asserted in petition: that counsel-was .ineffective for fail-

566

, I

(

, ·,

"·

OREGON. '·! .' § 40:46

ure to adVise him ·about' deportation: eonsequences); State. v. ~Rodri~ guez, ·217.0r. App.r_,•2·4~ · 175· }l:Sd· 4.71 (2007) ·(revocation of defendant,s driVing privileges upon· his . plea' of guilty for driving while under:·infiuence of intoxican.ts·,w:ii1s 1 parti-of defendant's 'sentence/ which he,could1 appeal); Ware v .. :Hall;·342 Or. 444, 154 P.3d 118(2007) '(trial court erred in dismissing:defendant'81post­~onviction petition.with-.prejudice,: without providing'defendant with a hearing;"under1applicable statutes, trial co'urt. could.:have di$missed, petition with' prejudice if courlthad ·appointed· counsel and. held a ·heating, or,: court cowd hav.e•di$misseq'.·petitfoDJ:before appointing courisel and without a; hearing, but.only i£ Jt :dismiss·ed Without .prejudice;· Or .. Rev~·~Stat. Ann., ch•. ·138·,·contemplates•two different courses for resolving postconvictionrpetitions; on: :the one hand, a.' court· may appoint counsel,:· :hold a.•hearing;. and, if ~P::­propriate, permit amendments: t"O:. the :petition, Or. Rev.· S.tat~ Ann. § 138.590.(authorizi.ng appointment 1of counsel),;·§ 138.610 (permitting amendments),··§ 138~620 (providing for hearings on petitions); having followed: that cou.rse, a eourt may ·dismiss the petition with prejudice, § 138.640 {describing· forni of judgment); on the other hand, a trial court may dismiss a meritless. petition before appointing counsel and~ without a hearing. ~h~ut only if it dismisses :without1 prejudice-a· .co.urse' that could .leave a petitioner free to file another· postconviction petition;· the legislatu~e :enacted § 138.550 ·as part of the 1959 'postconviction act;~that ·act. both created~a right.tto postconviction ·relief and established a comprehensi~e set: of procedures for resolving'post;.. conviction claims); Datt v. Htll, 347 Or. 672; 227-P.3d 714 (2010) (~'[Tlo determine~ habeas corpus junsdiction; a judgment d~nying claims for post-conviction relief must, at a minimum: (1) identify the claims for relief that· the court considered and make separate rulings ~on each· claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether. the'. deniaI is? based on a petitioner's .failure to utilize· or follow available. state ·procedures ;or, a failure to. establish the merits of.the claim; :and (3) 1make the• legal bases.for denial of relief apparent~; in, this case; the"third prong was not met:wben the trial court failed to· clearly st~te,whether petitioner:·failed:to prove inadequacy,':prejudice,~or both for ea:ch of the petitioner's claims for· relief; ·the· trial court's judgment therefore .failed to meet the standard under ORS 138J~40(U); Leahy v. Hill;t219 Or. App .. 592,' 185 P .3d. 464. (200~} .(Postconvict~o~ court's. judgment denying· defendant's petition fdr postconvictfon relief,: making no separate findings and· conclusions~ other than stating .that· the findings -were: made 'on: the record/ ·was insufficient); ·Hinton v~ Hill, 342 Or. 222, 149 P.3d 1205: (2006) (after· finding that ·post­conviction .petitioner had not· been ·informed by counsel of maximum -sentence ,she 1COul.d ::receiye under plea ·agreements,

567

§ 40:46 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

postconviction court was. authorized tQ grant remedy of vacating sentence,. without also vacating. convictions for sexual abuse); Quimby v. Hill, 213 Or. App .. 124,- .159 P.3d .1264 (2007) (the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure generally apply to postconviction proceedings; ·a separate statu~e, ·Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.610~ contairul. certain pleading-rUles that are specifically applicable to postconviction: relief actions; petitio~er's filing of amended post­conviction petition. on his own initiativ~· without leave of court, together· with in~orp.oration by reference, of allegatfons from. origi­nal petition; were adequate 'grounds for .striking the amended pe­tition; claims that.trial court lacked jurisdiction in case, that grand. jtiry;was not selected in accordance with law, .that trial judge did not take oath to remain impartial, and that statutes governing prosecution for theft· and burg~ary were void, consti­tuted allegations of trial error that could not be raised for first time on· postconviction rev.iew,. absent any showing by petitioner that claims .fell within any applicable exceptions to procedural bar); Wells v. Santos; 211 Or. App. 413~ 155 P..3d 887.(2007) (inef­fective counsel claim; a trial court's allowance· or· denial of leave to amend a petition for postcoriviction relief pursuant to statute governing .pleadings in .postconviction relief; proceedings is reviewed for an abuse of discretion;. although the trial court has broad discretion with respect to the amendment of postconviction pleadings,· the .exercise of that discretion should comport with directive of rule of civil procedure that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice -so requires); Asman v. State,. 210 Or. App. 369, 150 P.3d 1101 (2007) (a petition brought pursuant to the provisions of the Oregon UPCPA is civil in nature; the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure govern all civil actions; ·including those of statutory. origin, exc~pt where a different procedure is specified by statute or- rule; under circumstances, we affirm trial court's grant· of summary judgment :to state);. Hendricks v. Hill, 209 Or. App. 812, 149 P.3d 318 (2006) (ineffective counsel claim; under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.550(3), a postconviction court is prohibited from granting relief on a ground that the petitioner did not include in his .or her petition); Gable v. State-, 203 Or. App. 710, 126 P.3d 739 (2006) .(murder defendant was· not neces­sarily prejudiced by counsel's failure to confer with him. concern­ing his right to object on ex post· facto grounds to court's s·ubmis­sion to the penalty phase jury the. possibility of defendant being sentenced to life without possibility of parole as alternative to death under statute enacted· after: defendant committed the mur .. der,. which replaced .. the life with possibility of parole option); AmerS v. Hill, 203 Or. App. 30, 125 P.3d 24 (2005) (defendant was entitled to 20 days to· respond to motion to dismiss postconviction petition, even if state's supporting documentation ·attached. to

568

J

i

r

OREGON §:40:47

motion to ·dismiss ·showed that petition was filed more than two years after conviction became final, where defendant's, :petition did not ·allege date judgment or .order ·on. conviction was· entered, and thus, .w~s not subject to dismissal..on'pleading); Stroup tV~ Hill, 196 Or. App. ·565,,~108 P.ad.1157 · (2004) (petitioner cannot obtain. postconviction, relief on any ground that .reasonably could have. been· raised at trial· or on direct appeal unless the· petitioner demonstrates that the failure to raise :the issue falls within one of several narrowly drawn ;exc~ptio:hs,. which include, that the right ·subsequently sought to. b.e: asserted .was~ not :generally recognized to be in· existence ·at the· time: of trial, that counsel. was excusably unaware of facts which would have disclosed a basis for the assertion of the.· right,- tha~ duress or coercion prevented assertion of the right, or that· ·ea.unset was -incompetent or was guilty of bad faith); t?-e '~c~ulq.n<;>t. :i:eason,~b.ly,h,ave been asserted" exception to. Or .. Rev~ S.tat~ A.nn.' ~ 138«55.0(2) is ilQt limited to constitutiOnally grounded contentfons); ~eliefgranted); Short v~ Hill, 195 Or. App. 723, 99 P.3d 311 (2004) (claim that ·counsel was ineffective in failjng ,tq)~tr9Q.uce ~1tper,t e,vidence that petitioner's methamphe'tamine withdrawal' ~fade him unable to form requi~ite int~nt). · ' ·: ·

·' 1 .•• f :• •

§ 40:47 Writ' of h~beas corpus The writ of habeas corpus is a postconviction remedy. in Oregon.

The central characterist~q .o(~he writ of hapeas co~pus is the speed with which it triggers judicial scrutiny. If the petition has legal inerit, a judge· must issue aii brqer without ~elay~ requiring the custodian to ·shc>w cause·why:the writ should not be allowed. Tile court or judge before whom ~P.e party is brought on the writ shall; ill)mediately after the return thereof,' proceed to examine into"the facts· contained in the retlini, and into the· cause of the imptjsonnient or restraint of stidh party. If no 'legal cause is shown for the imprisoruilent Qr restraint, or for .the continuation thereof, the' court o·r judge shall discharge· such party: from the custridy or restrai~t under which the person: is held. Few other legal remedies provide such swift relief. Moreover, the mere axis: tence of a federal remedy does not deprive a prisoner of the protection of -the writ of :habeas :corpus in. state coUrt. Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or. 91, 176 P.3d 1272 (2008). · · The writ of habeas corpus is statutorily authorized in Oregon by Or. Rev. Stat. Ann .. § 34.310 through:§ 34.730. Under Qr. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 34.320, circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue writs ·of habeas corpus .. Under Or. Const. art. 7, § 2, the ·oregon Supreme Court-may, in its discretion, take· original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Under a provision of the Oregon UPCPA itself, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.530(3), the UPCPA shall

569

§ 40:47 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

not be.construed.to limit the:()riginaljririsdiction~of--the Supreme Courtf~in' , habeas : corpus:· as, provided in.· the ·Oregon ~1iate constitution. Whereas habeas ·.,corpus ,,;proceedings in the c, circriit courts are· governed 1 by ·statutory· provisions,,, odginal .lia.beas corpus proceedings ;fa.~~'the. Oregon· Supreme:· ColU't are governed by Rule llrJ20, ,Qr.· .R. App. Proe.· Under Rule· 11.20~1an priginal habeas corpus ·petitioidiled clirectly:in ·the Oregon Supreme ,court must include: a statement why application was- not madeito :the circuit :court for relief;- and. why .. appeal or any other applicable potential2remedy.is not a plain,~ sp·eedy and ~equ~te remedy:in the ordinary cohrse .oflaw, precluding issuance'. of .the writ.) · ..

• .' l :-_: • •• ' ~ ! : ~: . . ' ,.... 1 ~' . ~ : " ·}'·.· . ,., . > . :· ~ .

§ 40:48, ··1 Writ ·of habeas corpu._,~oceediilg 'is an "\; indepeiident:ci\!il:aetion·1' ·,,, : · ..

· 4n 'q~ego~. hab~as :. p'6_rj>Q.$; proc~~dihg j~ a. ciVil · ac~fon~. See, e~g., ~ates :l!: Ci~tnia~, )~7« Or.' A:P~~~ 8; ,()6(.P •.. 3.d 519 .~20~~) (habeas corpus. is ~ · ~vil Prp;c~e4htg).f

1 • ·: • •• .::- • .. ~ •

. ' ..... . ' . - , " . , ..

§· .4b:49 .. ·Writ of· habeas. corpus-Filing·· · · · . ~ • ~ ~ ' ; : '. : . . ·• l,.) ,- • t' t ~ ~ ~· , I ~ ! ~ _ , '. , i ~ , <' ., · ,. ', • · • ,

When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is. filed ii;l; a circui~ court it should be filed in the circuit court of the judicial district wherein the party is imprison~d ,or -re~tr~ined~ Or ... Rev~: Stat. Ann~ § 34.3~~· ' , ' A

.... -,

• ', ,- • • ; '. , • • ,•, • . ." l ' • • ' • ' '. .- ' I '"•

§ 40:50 ···Writ of habeas corpu~Right.to counsel j• • : ~ ' • ' .• • • , ', • , ' : f I , • ~ - _: :_ ~ : 0 ~ • ' '. • ' l

There i~ .n~ ~ight . to., ~pµn~el in Oregon . habeas . corpµs p~oc~ep:ings .. OoUI).s~~ ~ay .. be. appoin~~ to represen~. an. indig~nt applyi~g . .for l}ab.~as ;CQr.pus r~lief; and,. if ~ppointed, coµnsel _is entitled t~ compensati9n. Or .. ,Rev: .. St~t. Anµ.,. § 34.3.95-:. ,H()wever, an iµdigent. s~e~g habeas corpus . rel:i~f, .unli~e,. an Jndigent ap~ ply.ing for;relief un~er ~e Or~g~:>n UPCP.f\,, :has n,o_ righ~ to,.,ap­pp~~ted equns~l. If c1~µns~l. is appoiptep to'. rep:r;esent a hab~.as peiition~r, .. Or .• Rev. St~t~ .~n.i § ,lq,1~5.0.Q(l) a_uthorize~ a co¢. :to req~ire --t~e pe~jtion~t tQ repay th.~. costs of,cpurt appoi~ted ~t~ tomey, where th~_habeas :petitioD: :was filed. aft~r Jan. l, 1998.

: . ' '• : _ , • • f I . : I ~ 0

, ~ , : • • • , • .'

§ 4Q:51:: :Writ of habea.s. ~prp1:1~Ript to .C~l.µl~el--:-Case. . law · .. · · ;i ·. t":': .i : . 1 · :•.

, For case law ~n· apppintment·of counsel to repr~sent postoon­:viction habeas corpus petitioners· in Oregon,,·see, e.g.,. Bates v~ .Czerniak, 187 Or.· App. 8, 66 P.Sd 519 (2003) (Or. Rev. Stat. Anri. § 34·.-355 ·authorizes but does .not require a co~rt to appoint counsel ·for. an. inqigent plaintiff. ·iri a' babe.as corpus ·case;. n-0 Oregon statute gliarantees the appointment ·of counsel for an indigent habeas .corpus ·plaintiff).: .. · · ·

570

OREGON. . . ~· ( :§-~40:58

§ 40:52 · Writ of· habeas, corpus_.;.Filing fee ·, · · · · " .·. Afthotig~ :an l'ndig~n~ ]?.~fleas ;pl~tltibher ~may be: allowed tb. fU~ a ·h~ab~as .P~.t~ti~P. without; p~ying tµejfil~~.g; ~ee;:: t~e _fe~ ·m~! b.e ~ii~~ fro~, 01;, c4~ged agaµis~; · ~e pe~ti9ner's. ~st acco~t. if the petitioD:er is' an· irimate of Et state 'c~orrectional facility .. Or. Rev. Stat. Arin. § 34.365. -· · · · · " : · · .. · · ·: · · · · · > ,- '\ :...._ : '" ' ' : ~ :' ; o' ,' "f • i • • JI·, ./ • .. ,' .' • ; ' I

. - . - t r . - .-. l. . - ' . . . . . '' ; ·r··. -§ 40:53' -. Writ ot habe.•s .corpli~Order granting or · ·· ..... - ·-. · den.ying·is finai.app~8lable.order·. ··. , ·1 __ : ··

. , . • , • ' : ' . , ~ r. I ', . . _. . . • : ' , , '. . . , . ; ' ' ' • • • . •

_. A_ #µal order granting. or,.deny:il).g hab~~s ~Qrpµs .. ~~li~(,,is appe.alab~e.;Or .. Ji~v .. Sta~.: ~Il'~ ,§ 34.~i.o,.: ~e ~o~ice,:-Qf app~B:l J1:lUSt be served!.~<;! Pled withiP ·30.days.~_th~ ju4~~nt ap~ pe~~ed _from is. e~ter~d in-~!\e .regi~ter._,.Or,, R.e¥ .. s~tat._ .i\nµ.. § 19.255(1)~ The appeal-.i~ .. to_.tbe 1 -0r~g~p. Go~ .o(if\.pp~aj.s. ,Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §.2.516 <_q:r;~_gcm :9ou:rt __ :of Appeals.$haH ~~ye exclu~~~e juris~ctioJ.?.,· q(~ll. app~ajB).:. Couns~l tµ~Y. be; ~pppinted to represent the habeas P:etjtionei; ~n tp~ event Q( such an ~ppeal. pr.~~ev.S,tat._Ann.§,34.355.,;'.:.· ,;. ""L ... :,'

§! ~o:54 · w~t ~f )i~bea$ ~~rP~M..Y ·not be µ.sed~ ~o -~ · \ , .. _ c;hwle~ge_ CQ~vjc~iQn c:-r s~~t~nc~ -_ :·.... , -· . . j •• -

Otegonj postcon~ction: habeas• corpus ·may. not be used·: to ·raise claims challenging:,the·validity of1a·dmviciion or 'sentence;: only the Oregon UPCPA.may; be'\used ·for that purpose .. Or. ·Rev. 'Ooae Ann.'§ 3-4.320(3~ (a :person"·may- not prosecute-a writ·-0f1habeas corpus :if the·person· is ·eligible' to ·obtain postconViction relief pur­suant to UPCPA); Or. Rev. Qode Ann.. §: 138.540(1) (UPCPA shall be the· exclusive ·means, tafter judgment rendered 1upon a convic­tion for a· ·crime, for challenging. the lawfuliiess of-such judgment or.the proceedings upofr,which it .. is based)~.· '.l.: ; ' -"•". : . :'. r

§ 40:55 ~-:Writ .of habeas corp~WcPA do~-~ '~~t•liniit · , : · ·' · jurisdiction of Oregon 1Supreme Court ; · j

i )Ioweve.~,: the Oregon_' Il·PC~A shall ~ot }~e. i c.onstru~rl; :tq )i~!t t~e qriginal jurisdictioµ of the Oregon Suprem~ : Courfin habe~s corpus .. -flS -provided. in. the Oregon: "<Joh~ti~utiOp.'. pr~ Rev_. St'at. ~,o ,§ 138.530(3). ' '. , • " • \ ; • , . 1

,· ;,' • > I • • '

1• I 1 f • I , l • , , , • ~ \. l ~ - • 1 • ' " ' ' , ) • ; • I '

:§ 40:56 Wdt ·of hab~as · c~rpri.&.+~~y· ~e u~ed tri raise.r. ... · .. claims unrelated'to 'the v&lidity'of the conVictiOn : . " . \ : or sentence . . J • • • . • • • .. •

. : . ! • \ ..

. Oregon postconviction habeas corpus. :rnay· be . used to raise ·claims.unrelated to the validity of the conviction or sentence.'.Or. Rev. S.tat. Ann. § 138.540(2); (when a person restrained.by.·virtu~

571

§·40:56 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

of a conviction asserts the unlawfulness df the reswaint upon grqunds o~h~r than the u~~)Vfulµess .of the judgment, relief shall not be. available under th~. UPCPA, but shalLb~ ·~ought .by habeas corp_us) .. See, e.g.; Cullop v .. Offender. Information. an~ Se.nt~nce Computation Center, 226 Or. App. 167, 203 P.3d 276 .(2009) (trial court· stated that relatOr had a plain, speedy, and adequa~ ·rem­edy in the ordinary course of law by way of a writ of habeas corpus; the only type of h~beas. ~-~~ tha~ has any .potential ap­plication here is th:e type .d~~cribed iii o~S 34.610(2),. by which an inmate is entitled to discharge if hls or her "original imprison­ment was lawful,"· b~t "by sqme act; omission or event which has taken place afterwards, the party has 'become entitled to be discharged;" •relator· is correct that a· habeas remedy is not avail­able to him under t~at statute because .he ·is not alleging that, due to defendant's asserted error in ·cal~ulating his sentence, he ''has become entitled to' be discharge_d;"·rather, he alleges that, due to·deferidarit's assert~d ·error, it"h:as incorrectly calculated the date on which he will become entitled to be discharged; ·:rela­tor cannot state a claim for habeas corpus relief in this type of case unless he can allege that he is entitled to immediate release­and here, he does not, and' cannot, make stich'a claim; thus, the trial court erred iri ·concluding that habeas corpus provided a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.in" the ordinary course of law for the .alleged miscalculation of.relator's sentence); Dunn v. Hill, 211 ·0r. App. 590, 156 P.ad 7.2 (2007) (inmate's allegation .that correctional institution prevented .him from accessing and review­ing cas.es cited by .Attorney General in inmate's postconviction ·case was sufficient to state. a. claim for writ of ·habeas corpus based on violation of his due. process and equal protection right to access· tQ. the· courts;. inmate does not assert that the prison law library is generally deficient; rather, he alleges that.he hE\s pend­ing legal cases, including a postconviction case, and that defendant's1failure to maintain.an·adequate law·library, and fail­ure to allow him access to his pleadings and legal research stored on computer ~skat the Oregon ~tate Penitentiarj, has impeded his .ability to meaningfully. pursue those cases; habeas corpus relief is proper remedy. for inmate alleging deprivation of nis due process and equal protection right of access ·to the courts· ·to pursue a pending claim for postconviction relief; fnjunctive· or declaratory r.elief 'Yere not practical ~te:i:p.atives, ¢v~n that, in the. meantime, inmate's. postconviction claims might yery well be dismissed due to his inability: to. meaningfully responai to his op­ponent's pleadings); Barrett v. Belleque, 209 Or. App. 295, 150 P.3d.1064 (2006), affd on other grounds, 344 Or. 91, 176 P.3d 1272-(2008) (in context of prison disciplinary matter, inmate filed petition for writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his placement in

572

\

OREGON· §,40:59

intensive; management .unit (IMU) by Department; of Corrections constituted "punishment" and that he~ was entitled to' a; hearing before being. assigned· to· that unit; habeas corpus is an appropri­ate·remedy when a petitioner has no~other timely remedy avail­able, and there is a need for ·immediate judicial·scrutiny:of.the claim; cases in which this court or the state supreme court have concluded that habeas corpus was the only ·appropriate remedy, in contrast, generally have involved ongoing concerns about health or safety;. here, "the "inmate :.neither challenges the ~condi.; tions of confinement in th:~ IMU as violating his constitutional rights; ·nor does. he assert that he' is suffering from dangerous or unhealthy conditions; he challenges only the procedure followed in assigiling him to the .IMU; such a challenge can be brought as an action' under 42 U.S.C.A § 1983). .. -: ·

·1

§ 40:57 Writ of habeas corpus-Conditions where relief is ; barred ··

. . ' .

Under O.regQn statutory law, ppstco~victiOn habe~s corpus relief is barr~d, even· though n~ither the. _conviction nor the sentence is attacked, if: (1). the· person is eligil;>le~ to seek.judicial review in the Oregon· Court of Appeals of a iinal order of the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 144.335 but the person fails~ to s~ek judiCial review of the order in". a timely manner; or (2) the . pe~sQn s~eks judicial review of a final order of the Board under § 144~33!5 but the Oregon Court of Appeals. dismisses the judicial review, sum­marily affirms the .order of the Board, otherwis~ disposes _of the judicial review on the nierits. of the petitioner's issµes on judicia~ review, or dismisses the judiCial review because of a proc~dural defect. Or. Rev. Code Ann.§, 34.3~0(4), (5) ..

§ 40:58 Writ of habeas corp~Raising·cl~~ of _.' · sentence expiration . .. . ·

In·Oregori; habeas corpus may be used to raise a claim that·the convicted person's sentence has· expired.

§ 40:59· Writ of habeas corpuS-Inmate claims of unconstitutional deprivation of rights while · · . confined or unlawful confinement· conditions : · · ,

I

. In Oregon, ~tat~ prison inmates may bring! a h~b~as co~pu's proceeding t.o raise a claim of uncQ1:1stitutional. denial. of medical treatment by prison authorities, or a _claim of unlawful conditions of confinement.

· The prescribed c~ntents of a petition for a writ of habeas co~pus

573

§ 40$9 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

challenging either ,co:nditibns of:confinement ori.a::deprivation.of rights.while,confined are.specified in Or. Rev .. :Stat.:Ann. §;34.362. Such· a :,petition· mµst state facts in· support ·of a .claim that. the convicted. person is :deprived of a .constitutionfl:l right .that.requires immedi~te judicial ·atteµtion .and. for~which no other timely r~m­edy is practi$!ably, availabl~. to: the ·CO~victed . person .. Or. aev. s~at.:~Ann·.;-§.s.4.aa2.<2).~ . . .... ·.· . . ... ,. . .. :t.·

' " : ' ' -' - • • ~ ; ~ • i ' ' • - I

§ 40:fl.O .. Writ .of )i~be.a~ .. eo~us-Inmate. clPs. ~f . . I • ,,

· : . . . . . w.iconstit~t,o;nal d~priv~t~on ~frights .whil~. . . i

confined or unlawfUI confinement conditio~~ : ' . c._se.1aw . ' t ) : f... . . ' '• . '

, Fot. c~s~ law o~ ·the :use· ~f .Oregon habeas co~us tp ~hallenge medical .treatment of prison inmates·, .or conditions of.,confine­ment in prison, see, e.g., Barrett v. Belleque, 344 Or. 91, 176 P.3d 1272 (2008). (habeas -writ is avail~ble for·. two,. kinds of cases -those challenging a prisoner's 'further' restraint .. and those al­leging other deprivations of a prisoner's legal right~, such as overcrowding,.the quality ofprison food; and similar.conditions of ~pnsonment; petitiqrler' specifically ·disclaims any 'challenge to g~neral prison conditio~s and ·relies· preGisely on the claim tha~ place\ment i'n intensive· management unit '(IMU) is a further 'impris'o~meilt or. restraint' of his persori, whfoh is unlawful because it"was imposed in violatip~ of his federt.1 due process rights;, petitioner's claim is' the kind 'of claim that traditionally hits been c6gnizable hi habeas; even· if a successful. Section .1983 action could lead to injunctive relief, such' as an order', that petitioner be released from IMU placenierit, tl;iat alternative rem• edy ~ioes not· foreclose~ petitiori'ers habeas claim;· wropgful depri­vation of liberty by the state, which petitioner alleges here, 'is' a serious claim that justifies· iminediate judicial attention;, habeas corpus provides a speedy remedy for the dep~vation of. a spe~i_fic constitutional righ~the right to.be freefroniunlawful:imprison:.:. ment or restraint-when no other remedy win· provide timely reijef; ,C,ourt of App_eAls erred ~.holding that a-~vil'rights. lawsuit for tort damages and injunctive reli~f.is an-.adequate .alternativ~ remedy for a ~abeas petitioner who alleges an unconstitutional imprisonm~nt or restr~int .of his .pe,.~son; in se~king habeas;-.$~ burden that petitioner. must .. ~eet.: is a -l_ieav.y ._pn~; because petitioner'. doea riot_.~hal.lenge ~.i.s un~erlyiJlg. convictions or imprisonment, he must show that placement in IMU is a further restraint1oli'his liberty_that imposes atypical and significant hard­ships iii rel,atiOn to 'tl;le ordinary inci(lents of prison' life; petitioner inust ·a1s·o show ·that the Due Process Clause requires that· the state provide him a hearing before being placed in IMU and that the proc.edures afforded·him.by the state to challenge his IMU

574

-. / '

I

OREGON § 40:81

·placement are constitutionally inadequate; petitioner's ·claim fails the test for .demonstrating· a. due process. violation); Barrett v. Belleque, 209 Or .. App~ ,295, 150 P.3d .1064·-.(2006),::afi'd· on other grounds, 344 Or.: :91;, .176 P.3di :1272.(2008).(.in context:of prison disciplinary:. matter,. inmate fil~d petition .for writ 1of. habeas corpus, alleging t~at his placement-oin intensive management unit (IMU) :by Departmentrof Corrections constituted: "punish­ment'' and ~that~ hei:Was entitleq to a'. hearing before· being .as,. ~igned .to, that unit; habeas corpus is· an: appropriate ,remedy when a,petitioner .. has;no·;othet tlln~~y reniedy.available;.and thereJs·a need for -immediate judicial ·.sc::rutiny •of .the· claim:;_i cas~sin which this court or the state supreme .comthave .:concluded that·habeas corpus was the onlyf appropriate nem~dy,_ ·in contl'ast,: generally have involved ongoing conc~rns about ·health .or. ·safety; here, the inmate neither challenges ·!the conditions.-of confinement .in· the IMU as· violating :his. constitutional. rights_, nor .. ~oes. :he assert· that he is suffe:Ang from· dangerous .or unhealthy. :conditions; he challenges .only the, procedure fallowed. 'in; ·assigning: him. to. th~ IMU; :such a :challenge: can -be .bro:ught as, an action iunderi 42 U.S.C.A. ,§ 1983); Keenan·v~ Hall, 202 Or. App. 5'(1,, 128 P.3d 812 (2005): (habeas .. corpus ~elief .may· .be .·availabl.e:,.·{1) where a prisoner, though validly in custody, .is subjected~to a further imprisonment Of .restraint :that would be1:unlawful1 if _not justified to the court; and (2).where.other depriv~tions:of a pri~oner1s le.gal rights, ·OCCUI'. ,and: 1µ0:: other timely remedy. is available(.· to:. the prisoner;· here,-prisoner.'s .petition .. fott<habeas· corpus ·relief with respect to_ allegedly indiffel'ent medical. care, directed at a ·specific superintendent. of a. corr~ctional institution~: was moot . .following prisoner's. transfer to another institution)~; :

; .'•. / ' .•• :_ ... i)' ·_.,·~ ·•,._,;~Jr .... >:

§.40:61 .. Writ of habe~s corp~Ca:se law:·regarding : · : .. h~b~$s corpus .. · · .- . . ,').~ , : .. , · ··

, Fot cEise law· on use·of Oregon.:postconvictiori habeas ,corj)tis to raise clai~s unrelated to the validity of· the' conviction ·or sentence, see, e.g., Roy v. Paln;iateer, 339 Or. 533, 124 P.3d 603 (2005) (habeas claim ~that··petitioner,-· an inmate, 'is entitled to· bn­mediate release on .. habeas· corpus. because the Board Qf Parole and Post .. Prison .S:uper;vision .ha:a ·determined that.· he is Uk~ly .to be rehabilita~d within a .. ~ea~onable .period of time; we; conclude that the . state co~ of appealS erred i.n· holding that .. plaintiff was entitled-to. immediate .release on parQl.e); Dur)n v. Hill, 2lt Or. App. 590,.156 P.3.d 72 (2Q07)!(~ate's aij.egation_that cQrrectional institution .prevent~d him .from accessing and reviewing cases cited .by Attorney General.in inmate's .postconviction case. was sufficient to state a claim for. writ of. b~beas corpus b~~ed. ,on violation. ·9f his due process ·and eqtJa~ ·protection right _to acces.s, to

fi75

§ 40:61 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

the courts; inmate does· not assert that the prison law library is generally· deficient; rather, he alleges that he _has pending legal cases, including a. postconviction· case, and: .that defendant's fail-· ure to maintain an: adequate law library, and failure·to allow him access . to his pleadings. and legal research stored on computer disk at the· Oregon State Penitentiary~ has impeded his .ability to meaningfully pursue those case's; habeas corpus relief is proper remedy for inmate alleging deprivation of his due process and equal protection right of access to the courts to pursue a pending claim for postconvictioil relief;·injunctive or· declaratory relief were not practical alternatives·, given that, in the meantime, inmate's postconviction ·claims :might very well be dismissed due to his .inability to meaningfully respond to· his opponent's plead­ings);· Green v. Baldwin, 204 Or. App .. 351, 129 P.3d· 7.34 (2006) (in. a petition: for .a writ· of habeas ·corpus;. the habeas petitioner; an: inmate, argued that he was entitled to credit for the 110 days he had been· inc'arcerated as a condition of his probation; the petitioner asserted .that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision had applied legislative amendments in violation of constitutional protections against application of ex post facto laws; ·since petitioner. was subsequently released on parole, his habeas petition is nioot); Alexander v. Gower, 200 Or. App. 22, 113 P.3d .917 (2005) (under a 2001 statute· codified at Or. Rev. Stat:. Ann. ·§:34.330(4), a person may not prosecute a writ of ha.;. beas ·corpus' if the· person· is eligible to seek judicial review of a final order of.the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision under Or: Rev~'. Stat. Ann. § 144.335 but the person.fails to seek judicial review of the . order· in a timely manner; ·here, inmate's petition for writ of habeas corpus, to compel his release from· prison on ground that he had served past his good time date on sentences pursuant· to which he· was confined, was barred by operation of law, where inmate was eligible to seek judicial review of order _of BoB;rd pf Parole &nd Post-~rison .. Supervision deferring his r~l~ase. on parole but failed to.do so in timely manner). . .

§ 40:6~ . Motion to correct vofd.e;~ntence The motion to correct void sentence, filed in the convicting

court, is an Oregon postconviction :remedy:· The remedy is not statutorily authorized, but exists· by virtue of case law. The rem.;. edy exists. because in• Oregon a convicting court has inherent authority to correct a void- sentence-that is, a ·sentence· not in ac:. cordance with the appropriate sentencing statutes-it previously imposed. See also Or. Rev. Stat. Arin:~§ 138.083(1)(a) (the sentenc~ ing court shall retain authority irrespective of any notice of ap• peal after entry of judgment of conviction to modify its judgment and sentence to correct any arithmetic or clerical errors ·Or to

576

\

OREGON § 40:63

delete or modify any errone'Ous term in the judgment; the court may correct the judgment either on the motjon of one of the par­ties or ·on the colirt~s own motion after written notice to all the parties). , .

§ 40:63 . Motion to correct void, sentence-Case law • ' .,, ' , ~ ' ' ' ' ' • lo • .' J I ' - ~' - ' ' ' ' '

For case law on the inherent .power ·of an Oregon. convicting court to correct its own void. sentences, see, e.g., State· v. Harding, 225 Or. App. 38~, 2.02 .P.ad 181 (2009); ;r.eview. dismissed, decision vacated. on otq~r grou~ds; 347 . .Qr .. ?68, 223· P.3d 1029 (2909) (ORS ~38.083 provides.Em excep~ion to the.coipmon-law..rule that a court lac~s authority to. mqdify an _executed sentence; a depart~e sentence thB:t is. based· on ju~~ial findiligs of fact :inay constitute ~ erroneous term in, th~ judgme;nt; court did riot lack jurisdiction to consider defendant's motion); Parris v. Hill, 225 Or. App. 204;· 199 P.3d 889 (2009):(defendant had a right to· no­tice and a right to be h~ard when the co~ inade a substantive amendment to his sentence· pursuant to ORS 138.083; not only did appellate counsel' provide inadequate assistance in failing '.to raise that issue, but petitioner was prejudiced,:given that, had he been present when the court amended the judgment, he would have had an opportunity to· bring.· the error in the judgment to the court's attention; ·accordingly,· the postconviction court·erred in denying petitioner relief concerning that allegation); Holloway v. Gower, 225 Or. App. 176, 200 P.3d 584 (2009) {defendant .was not denied effective assistance ·of counsel ·by appellate counsel's failure to assign as error trial court's correction of idefendant's sentence outside defendant's presence, in proceeding under stat­ute allowing correction of sentence during pendency of appeal, since correction of sentence ·.outside 'defendant's presence wasmei­ther preserved nor reviewable as plain: error; in, regard. to action­able prejudiqe resulting from inadequate assistance of appellate counsel, . a petitioner must establish: (1) that. competent app~llate counsel would. have asserted the claim·; ·arid·~(2) that,· had tlie claim of error beert raised, it. is more probable· than not~ that' tiie result of the appeal would have been. different; ordinarily~ where an issue is not preserved at trial and is not reviewable ·as· pla~n error, appellate counsel's performance is not deficient by -reason of failing ·to assign the issue· as error· on appeal; appellate counsel exercised objectively reasonable professional skill and judgment, and thus was not deficient, as an element of defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in seeking to correct defendant~s sentence for second degree escape by way of a proceeding under statute allowing correction of sentence during pendency of ap­peal, rather than as

1

signing error to the sentence on direct appeal on the ground that it exceeded the statutory indeterminate

577

§ 40:63· . STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND· RELIEF

maximum); -State v~ French, 208 Or., App. 652, 145.P.Sd 305 (2006) (Or; Rev. Stat. ·Ann.:·:§ l·38~083(1) modifies.the .conimon-law ·ni!e prohibiting a:sentericing court from·modifyingdts1judgment after the sentence has been executed; § 138.083(1) currently proVides: "The sentel}cing court shall re_tain authority irrespective_ of any notice of appeal after entry of judgment ·of cc)nViction 'to modify its judgment·aµd sen.teil.ce. to correct;any;arithmetic or clerical er­rors or to delete. or modify any erroneous term ·in· the judgment;" it-is· not the case that a judge's··power to tnodify or· vacate a valid sentence 'erids once ;the ·defendant is delivered· td· the .. 1custody .of th~. supervisory authority. after· impositibn of the judgirient; here:, und~r § '138.0~3(1)~ the sEmten~g c~urj; '.haq· authority to ·:modify its writt~.n jiid~~n( ~.(~er ~ef~n~.~~~ ~~d b'!a~·n deliv~;red. to cuetody of Department. o( Uorrecti,oris'. to· order defendant. to serve sentence .. unposed consecutfve,.to. any"sentence

1

he was· then. CtU~ r.~~tly ... ser:\ring, where sen~encillg c()~rt .had orally imposed sentep.ce' ~o:. ~be serv~d _coµsecq~v.~ly, but it& _Writt~njudgzµent ~~s sil~.nt a~ to whetP,er. sente1i:ce w~~ to! .pe ~erved .c~n(furreptly or consecutively); Stqte·.v~. Eas~on, 204 Or. App.· 1, 12.6:P.3d 1256 (2Q.06) (§ 138.,0Sa(l):permits a ... cour.t.to.co.rrect any erroneous term in.the judgment, notwithstanding: that.:the. sent~nce has been· executed; by enacting,§ 138!083tl);. the .legislature· has mod­ified .the ·common~ law rule that, a court :may; not modify a sentence that has beenexecuted);State·v . .Riley;195:0r. Aw: 377,/97 P.3d 1269 (2004) .~sen.tences 1that violate the s~atutes :governing crimi-\ rial sentencing lack ¥ali.d· sentencing authority, and. the trial coUrt may modify them· as necessary). -. ·I\

• ' I • i , .J ~ • • •

§ 40:64 Judicial.review. of orders.-of Board, of Paroles and : · ·Post-Prison Supervision~ ......

, Jud1.cria~· rev,ie\V~· in tQ~ Or~go:r;i. Court of Appeals~ of cert~.in pfders of th~. Or~·g~p. J3qar~ <;>(~arples and }:l.ost~ Prison. Supei:vi:-~fo.n ·~s :a~~the:r;:_post~o~~~ti~~· temedy in Oregpn.

1

• ·, • • •

. A final: ord~r. of the .OregQ~ -Boarq. of Paroles·, ap.d .Post-I;>rison Sµpezyision is, after· the exh~ustion 9f ;admil)istra,tive .reµiedi~s, subject to re~ew by; the O~egon. Cqurt of:Appeals upon the filing pf a ,petition for review by the convicted person adversely: ~ffected Qr aggri~ved by. the orc;ler. Or-... Rey. Stat. Ann. § 144.335(1), . $ee also ~Rule 4 .. 10,. Or. R. App,. Pro~. (judiciid review of review~ble orders of the Board of .P~ole. and; Post-Prii:;on. Sup~rvision; .W:~ch shall be entitled "Parole Review," shall be in accord~c~ with, .the rules for judicial review Qf orders of state agen~ie_s. in~ co1:1tested cases and shall show. the, Board of ,Parole and· Post-Prison SuperV,isipn as respoµdent).. '· . . . .

578

r

/

OREGON . 'i .§ .. 40;88

§ 40:65 . Judicial .review :of orders of Board._of Paroles: ~d Post-Prison Supervision-Exhaustion of

.:. 1 ; • admbµst~ative re~edies: .... • ,: . i .1 ; ; :;:~ .. ~ ..

· .;Before. petiti'oning the ·Otegonl Court of-~ppeal~;· the'. convicted person must exhaust administrative· review as provided by ·Board rule. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 144.335(2). The petition. for review must· be filed ·originally in the ~egon,Court of Appeals within 60 days after the date the Board mails:the .order disposing.·.of the persoµ.'s~reqµest.fo~ ~~str~tive,review; and. the. 1per~pn shall serve a copy of the petition for judici~· r~Y;iew ,mi . .the ·Board. Or. ~v. ~tBit. Ann. § 144.3a5(4) .. ~.ee also. Qi;. ~~Y· St~t .. § ,144.335(10) (dpnng :the· pendency'1of judici# .re~~w Qr$.. o~dei:, ·~tthe ·Bq~rd W'!thdraws the Qrder for the purpose of r~<;ons1deratioµ aµd there­Si~er iS~µ~~ an o~der on re~Ol}~~deration~ ap.d the petition~f, ."'1~hes to proc~ed.witii.the juditjfil. :reView, ~he P.0titi0ne:r.·µeed :not .seek admiriistrative review . of the order on recoq.sideration and .'need not file a new'petitionfor judiCiaI reView; ·~he petitibner shall file, ~ithfn a tii;ne. ~stablish~d' by' t)l:e court, a notice :of" intent to proceed withjudicfal review); Rwe 4~35(4)(a)(ii); Or. R. App. Proc. (~f.the petitioner on JU:dicialieView of art order of the Board otPa­roie and: Post-Prison StiperVision desires .to'continue.the'..judicial review after the 'Board· issues its . order on. reconsid~ration, the petitioner shall file.~. n'.,d,tict:('-Or intent ~o: p~oceed with judicial review within the period equal to that allbwed· for filing aµ-'origi-nal · petitipn, unless the· court· ~allows :additional time). · ~ ·

..... H:~; .·-,!''~ · .. !-~·.:',,·'· .·;.~•. .

§ · 40:66'· ··Judicial' review of ord~rs of ·Board; of Paroles and ··.' Post•Prisoii Supe~sion~Contents of ~et.tion.

~; ~ ,! •_•.;. ,( i 'f,~~f ; ,,;_ ::~::.:· 'i·>- 1,_*.' . ' ·~ f'. ·4 • ,_1•1'. •\ ~i ·:· .· -

. . The. pree~tjbed cpp.t~11-t~ ,of: tl;ie petition for judiciar ,reyiew .are set forth in Rule 4.15, Or. R. App. Proc. ·\

1, ,

§ ·40:6i ,'Judi~i&I ~E?vl~~·.'.ot,o~d~rs. 01'~0~4· ~r:r'.~61es,-~d ·Post-Prison SuperVision-Right to.c9Wis~l

. I . , . .

, There·is . .a right~to·~o~ns~l.for convicted.person~.who under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann.'§ 144.339 me, a .. petition for revi~w ·inJJ1e Oregon Gourt of Appeals. Or-r Rey. St~t. Ann. § 144 .. 337. (indigents pet~tio11iµ.g .·the1 Oregon. Cou~t· c;rf Appealet for· review under § 144.335. shall be represented by the Public Defen's~ S~ces Commission).

"·· ·.~= ', ,1 ~1. ~. '., -,/ f, \ ~;~

§ 40:68 . ''JudiciBI reView of orders of Board of :Pi.roles and ·. · · ~. ·Pos~~Pris.oi;i ~ul>e.rvisfoil~Orego~ ~~vise~ . · · · -. · · Statutes·§ 144~335-Text .. · · ·

l:'

,· Or. Rev .. '.~tat. ·,A.n.n .. § ;144.~35. provide~: ~· .

579

§·40:68 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 144.335.· ·Appeal-Effect of filing appeal~Appoint- · ment of rilaster. ·;.,

(1) A person over whom the· State Board of' Parole and Post­Prison Sqpervision exercises. its jqtisdi.ction may. seek.Judicial r~yiew of ~a flnal order of tha board . &s ; provid~d in this section if: '

: ! •

' • ! (a) The .person· is adversely affected or aggrieved· by a.final order of the board; and

(b) The person has· exhausted administrative ·review as p!ovided by board rule~

: (2) A pers;on requesting administrative :.review shall provide ' .. th~ p~rson's current maiJing address in the request. The board

'shall. mail its order disposing of the request for administrative. re\riew to the p~son at that· ad~ress, ·uniess the petson has otherwise notified the board in Writing of ·a change of address.

(S) · The order of the board need· not be in any .special· forin, and the order is sufficient for purposes of judicial review' if it appears that the board acted within. the scope of the board's authority. 'The Court of Appeals may affirm, reverse or rem~nd the order on the same basis as provided in ORS 183.482 '(8). The filiiig: of the petition shall not stay the 'board's order, but the board may po so, or the colirt ~y' order a stay upon ap~ plication on such terins as it deems 'proper. ·

(4) If a person described . .in subsection (1) of this section seeks judicial review of a final order of the board, the person shall file a petition for judic\al review wit~. t~e CQurt.of Ap­peals within 60 days after the da~ tQ.~ bo~d mails the order disposing of the person's request for admiriistrative review., The

· perso·n shall ·serve a copy of the. petition fur judicial review on the board. · "' · ' -' · · ; ·

(5) .Within 30 d~ys after being s~rved with a. copy of th~ peti­tion ·for judicial re'.View, or such fcirther tinle as the .. court may allow, 'the board shall: · · .. ·

· (a) Submit to the court the record of the proceeding or, if the petitioner agrees, a sliortened record; and ·

(b) Deliver a copy of the record to the petitioner or the petitfoner's attorney, if the petitiQner is represented. ·by an attorney. · · · ··· · · · · (6) Within 60 days after being served with a copy of the 'rec­

ord, 9.r such further time as the court may allow, the petitioner shall file a motion for leave to proceed with ju~c:ial review based on a showing in the motion that a substantial question of law is presented for review. · ·

(7) Notwithstanding ORS 2.570, the Chief Judge, or other

580

I

)

I

OREGON § 40:68

judge ·of the Court of Appeals.designated by the Chief,Judge, may, on behalf of the CoUrt ·of Appeals;. determine whether a motion for-. leave~ to proceed with judicial :review under subsec­tion (6) of this section presents a substantial question :of law and may dismiss the judicial review if the motion does not· pre­sent a substantial question of law. A dismissal under this subsection constitutes a decision on the merits of the petition-er's issues on judicial review. -· .. . · ';,

(8) If the Chtef Judge, ·or other judge of the Court of Appeals designated by the Chief Judge, .dete~es under s~bs~~tion (7) of this section that the m.otio~ p~~sents a substanti~l que~tion of law, the court shall order the judicial review to procee.d.

(9) At any time after submission of the petitioner's brief, the . court, on its ow-n motion or on motion of the board, without submission of the board's brief and without oral argument,

: . may summarily affirm the board's order if the court determines that ,the judicial review <:loes not present. a SlJ.bstantial question of law. Notwithstanding ORS.2 .. 570, the Chief Judge, or. other judge of the Court of Appeals des~gnated QY. the Chi~f Judge, may, on behalf of the ,Co.urt of Appeals, de~y or, .if the pe~itioner

· d.oes. µ.ot oppose the motion, grant the. board's motion .for suui­. mary. affirmance. A summary affi.i-mance under. this. subsectiqn

.. constitutes a decision o;n the merits of the petitj.oner's issues on . : judicial retjew.. · ·

(10) During the pendency of judicial review of an· order, if · the board withdraws the_ order for. the purpose of reconsidera­

tion and thereafter issues an order on reconsiderati9n,. and the petitioner wishes to proceed with the judicial. review, the petitioner need not seek administrative review of the order on reconsideration and need not file. EJ. new petition for judicial review. The petitioner shall file, within· a time establi~hed by

· the court, a notice of intent to proceeii with judicial review. ~~ : .. (11) In the case of disputed allegations of.irregularities in ··procedure before the board :not shown in, the record that, if

: ; · proved, would warrant reversal or remand, the Court of Ap­. peals may refer the.allegations· to ·a master appointed:by the . court to take evidence and make ·findings of fact upon: them. .

.· (12)- If the court determines that the motion filed· under ···;subsection (6).·of this section, when liberally construed, fails to

state.·a:colorable cfaim for review of the board's order, the court may' order the petitioner to pay, in addition to the board's re­coverable· costs,. attorney fees incurred by the board not to exceed $100. If the petitioner moves to dismiss the petition

- ·before expiration of the time provided in subsection (6) of this section,' the court may not ·award cos~s or attorney fees· to the

..;·board.; .. · · · · · · · · ·

581

§. 40:88 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

~.-:·.t (13) Upbn,request by the'. :board, the" Department of .conec­,; tions: may· draw from or charge. to. the petitioner's' trust account

"an<i ~payt to. the board~ the1 $nount of any costs or: attorney. fees .· ·.awarded· to the .1board by the court in any judicial review under t·this section. 4

· :· : •• : • • • ·f.'·'' · ~ · -:~;. ·: f, :. ' •• \. •• • ·.~ ; • ; .. t • •' : ' • : ' ' '

.• ,-~·· ·' ~ .. ' !~· : . ... .•· ,: ~-.

§ 40:69 Judicial review of orders of Board:of Paroles and • • 1 . ,.- . :Po$i·Prison ,Sup~nision-Case law.. · · · For ;cas·e law· on judicial ·review -Of Oregon Board of Paroles _and Post-Prison Supervision.· orders p~suant to Or. Rev~ Stat. -¥m· § 144.835;· see,·. e.g~, Jenkins· v. Board of Parole· and Post-Prison Supervision, 356 Or. 186; 335.P.3d 828 (2014) (this casEdnvolves the.interpretation' and application of two statutes, Or. Rev.:Stat. Ann.·§ '1·44.385(8)-and' Or. Rev .. Stat. Ann~§ 144·.185,-to· a final or­de:r; ·of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) that postponed petitioner's releas~. date· from pz1son; the :thr~sh­old. ·question on review is whether, by :·amending~§· 1'44.335(3). in 1999, the legislature· jnteiided tO exempt 'the ·board· from the "substantial reason" standard· that· this court had identified and applied i11; Martin· v:·Board bf Parole ·and Post-Prison Supervi­sion, 327 Or~ 147, 957 P.2d·12l0 (1998); under'that standard, the board's orders:must provide some kind of an explan~tiori ·connect­ing the facts of the case (which would include the facts found;. if any) and:the·result reached; if.the legislature did:not intend to exempt the· board from the "substantial reason" standard, the second· question is whether-the ·board's order ht this case satisfied the substantial ·-reason stanaard; the third question· is, whether the board's order complied with•§ 144.135; ·which requires the board to state in'.writing the,-detailed bas.es, of its deCisions;'·we conclude· that the :t999 amendment to·§ 144.335(3) did not elimi­nate the substantial reason ·requirement· that: inheres in the substantial :evidence. standard of :review. to which the board's orders are iSUbject;~ however, we. further conclude· that· the board's final: order.·ih'this ·case satisfied· that requirement: and ·satisfied §'.144.135); 'Rivas~Valles ·v.: Board of: Parole· ·and ·Post-Pr.ison Supervision, 275 Or. App~. 761, 365 .. P.3d 674 (2015) .(in .. 1990, petitioner:was convicted of·aggravated murder, and was :sen.tenced to life· ·imprisonment with a .30-year minimum term .w,ithout. the possibility .of parole or· work: release. and .. a. 20-year nrlnimum · pe­riod before he could seek parole r~view; iti.2011, the Board of Pa­role and Post-Piison Supervision· '(board) cond"Q.cted. 8.1-murder review. hearing pursuant to Or. Re~ •. Stat. Ann~'.§ 163.105(2); the board concluded1that petitioner failed to carry his burd~n:of!prov .. ing that he was likely to be· rehabilitate~ in a reasonable p.eriod of time; accordingly, it denied petitioner's request to conver:t.J:rls

582

I

OREGON

aggravated murder sentence to a determinate term of' 30 years; on review,~ .petitioner contends that the board's order ·is not sup~ ported by substantial evidence or, substantial. reason; relying· on Or~ Rev. Stat. Ann. § 144.335(4), therboard respondsthat this court'- lacks jurisdiction to review !the board's ·order.~liecause petitioner failed: to serve· his petition for judicial review·. on the board within 60 days -0f the date the board ·mailed· its final 1order disposing of petitioner's request for administrative .review; alternatively, if this· court h'.as jurisdietion; the board asserts- that its final order is supported by substantial evidence :and substan­tial reason; for the -reasons that follow, we· conclude that .the court has jurisdiction to review· the board's , final order and that the . order is supported 'by substantial evidence and reason; ac­cordingly, we affirm; the context of§ 144.335(4) suggests that: the legislature did not iihtend for service of the petition .for review on the board within' 60 .days: to· be a jurisdictional requirement; we conclude that.the legislature.did.not·jntend to1·iinpose a.60-day jurisdictional· deadline for :service on the board; the board's, order

\ wa~ supported,by substantial evidence and substantial~reason); Fleming v. Board of Parole: and Post-:Prison.Supervision,·26l0r. App. 604, ·323 P.3d ·543 (2014), ir~view denied:, 355 ,0r.· 879, 333 P.3d 333 (2014) (petitioner seeks judicial review; of ;Sin"order-.6f the Board· of Parole· ·and Post-Prison . Supervision (board). setting his· projected parole~· release··· date'· for ·.,April · 2016; because, ori administrative· review ;before the board, petitioner failed to. ,raise the.issues· he seeks to .. have us addresslin:his assignme·nts of_er~ ror, ·those :issues are· not Leognizable .on judicial review; accord• ingly, we affirm the board's ora~r); Dixon. v~·.Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision~, 257 Or. App~· 273~ ·286, .306; P.3d !716 (2013)-· (petitioner .is! ;serving 1a ·life sentence .for oiie"'-couilt of ag­gravat~d murder; the .triaLcourt-imposed:a:30-year minimum sentence without the possibility of parole, o:v work· release and a 20•year.: mi~imuin ·period· before petitioner could seek\ pavole review;. he· now seelts )review of a decisiOii (by the Board :Of·Parole and· Post-Prison Supervision (th~ .board) -denying his request to change. the terms of.his confinement-to. a 30-y:ear, term;l the board . concluded. that petitioner failed~ to ·carry 1his 'burden of prov.ing that- he was likely: to. be rehabilitated within· a .reaso~able. period of time; .petj.tioner contends that·he provided sufficient- evidence that ,he: was. capable of. rehabilitation in a short period :of time and, therefore, t;h.e board's.·decision was· not supported by substantial evidence; in addition;1 petitioneri contends that the board failed to: proVide substantial reasoning for its conelusions; in our review under Or.· Rev. Stat. Ann. § 183A82(8)(c) (which p;rovides ·that th~ court shall set· ·aside or remand the order if. the court·finds that the order is not supported by ,substantial evi-

583 '

§ 40:69 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

dence in the record, and that substantial evidence exists to sup­port a finding of fact when the record, viewed as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make. that finding), we conclude that the board's final order is supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason; accordingly, we affirm); Hostetter v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison. Supervision, .255 Or. App. 328, 296 P.3d 664 (2013),, review denied, 353 Or. 747, 304 P.3d .38 (2013) (petitioner was convicted of murder in 1992 and then released on post-prison supervision (PPS) in 2006; however, in 2008, the Board ·of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the board) revoked petitioner's PPS after he violated the conditions of his supervi­sion; petitioner now· seeks judicial review of an order of the board denying his request for re-release on PPS and se~ting a projected release date of January 17, 2015; he asserts that the board erred in imposing an .84-month incarcerative sanction for the violation~ arguing that-under the then-applicable rules governing sanc­tions· for PPS violations-the board was not permitted to impose an incarcerative sanction in excess of 90 days; we review the board's order for errors oflaw, and, while petitioner acknowledges· that the board's action was permissible under our prior construc­tion ofthe. applicable rules in Jones v.· Board of Parole and Post­Prison Supervision, 231 Or. App. 256, 260, 218 P.3d 904 (2009) (overruled by, Hostetter· v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 255 Or. App. 328, 296 P.3d 664 (2013)), we revisit and overrule. that precedent, agree with petitioner, and reverse; the board erred. in imposing an· incarcerative sanction in excess of 90 days for· petitioner's technical·violation of.the conditions·ofhis superVision); Blacknall v. Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervi­sion, 348 Or. 131, 229 P.3d-595 (2010) (Board of .Parole and Post­Prison Supervision order is· subject to judicial review if the order is a: final orde~; the petitioner is adversely affected. or aggrieved by it, and the petitioner has exhausted administrative review-; Court of Appeals· concluded that· petitioner had· presented. a "substantial· .question of law" and, therefore, granted petitioner's motion for leave to proceed with judicial review; as a.consequence, the court necessarily also concluded that petitioner had presented a "colorable claim"· for review under ORS 144.335(12); statute governing judicial review of Board of Parole· and Post-Prison Supervision orders did not prohibit the Court of Appeals from awarding costs and disbursements to the Board as prevailing party when Board dismissed as moot inmate's petition for judicial review of order denying request for re-release, even though inmate had presented a colorable claim on judicial ·review, where inmate had not timely moved to dismiss the petition);. Buckman v. Hall, 2009 WL 1476703 (D. Or. 2009) (the Oregon Court of Ap­peals may summarily affirm a decision by the Oregon Board of

584

I

(

OREGON §-40:69

Parole and Post-Prison ,S_upervision, if judicial review does not present a substantial :question of law . or· if petitioner's bri,ef fails -to· state a colora~le claim for review; 'substantial question of law' as.·useddn O.R.S. 144.335, reflects greater quantum of arguable legal merit than 'coloz:able· claim' standard); Wells- v. Oregon, ·2009 WL-1118414· (D. Or. 2009) .(parolee may challenge a sanction for violation of a parole· condition. by Seeking administrative review from the -Board; after the Board conducts· ·an administrative review and. denies relief, the ·parolee ·then may seek judicial review; parolee's right to judicial review precludes the-·reqtiest' for injunctive relief); Stogsdill v. Board of Parole· and Post-Prison. Supervision, 342 Or. 332, 154 P.3d .. 91 (2007) (prisoner-sought judicial.review ofdecisioriofthe:Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supemsion postponing·; his ·scheduled· rel.~ase date after finding, by' pr'eponderance of evide*c~, severe( emotional disturbance . constituting <langE!r to healtn or safety of conimurlity; under stat­ute allowing Board· pf Parole 'and Post-Prison. Supervision to postpone_ prisoner's ~chec;l.uled· release .date if board found that prisoner had severe emotioil,al disturbance such ·as to· cpnstitute dange~ to communitjr, nndin,g'tha~·pris~iler convicted of murder had s·uch condition by prepotj.derance of ~he evidence; rather than clear and convincing evidence, satisfisd due process; the Court c;>f · Appeals affirmed: the Board's . order without opinion; . we allowed re~e~ and now, affirm' the Cqurt of Appeals deCision); Davis v. Board pf Parole and 'Post-.Prison· Supervision, 341 Or. '442, 144 P.3d 931 (2006) (in deterinihing whether to set a release date for inmate who had been sentenc~d as a.dangerous offender, Board of Parole arid. Post-Prison~ Supervision ·prop'ei-ly applie.d a "preponderance of the eV:idence" standard in determining whether the condition that made inmate dangerous was still prciserit); Atkinson v. Board of Parole ttn_d Post-Pr~on Supervision, 341 Or. 382, 143 P.3d 538 (2006)' (inmate ·sought· judicial review of deci~ sion ·by Board of Parol~ and f:lost.;.Prison Sup_ervision denying mo­tion ~o change confinement, to life iri prison With possibility of pa­r:o~e . or w_ork r~lease; ~ "supstantial qu~stion of law"· as 'used in statute allowing judicial review of Board of Parole and Post­Prison Supervision decision if substanti~ questiOii of law is pre­sented fo.r review is a soundly oa$ed, firmly supported question capable of adjudication as to what ~he law is as presented by the facts of the partictilarcase; the ·"subs~antial question of law" standard reflects a greater quantum of'arguable legal merit than the "colorable claim" standard); Efl.gWeiler v. Board of Parole And -Post-Prison Supervision, 340 qr. 361, 133 P~3d 910 (2906) (under 1999 version of Or. Rev. Stat. Anii. § 144.335, inmate's petition for judicial review from Board of .Parole and Post-J;>rison Supervision's order setting a review date, which marked the 1time

585

§·40:69 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES .AND RELIEF

when prisoner w.ould .receive furlb.e~ parole consideration ;via:·a hearing, was subject' to ~dismissal; inasmuch as Board~s order was not subject to. judicial ~re:view; ·unlike orders granting.·· a parole releas~ date, in 1999 orders setting~a review date:.were not subject to judicial review .pursuant to·· express provisions of .stEitute pertaining to Judicial review of.final. orders of board. granting, revoking,. or discharging parole;·:§: 144.335:was significantly modi- · fied in 2001 ·to broaden the types ·of orders subject ·to judicial. review);Al@L11tder v. Gower, 200.0r.App~ ·22, 113 P.3d 917 (2005). (µnder;a-2001 st~tute coclijied.at·Q:r;. Rev. Stat .. Ann.: §i34. 330(4), a, person iµay not prosecu~e ~ wtjt of ha,'beas !con>us. if the person is .. eligib~e. ~ Sf'ek judi~al i;evi~W of a final orq~r of th~ ao~C;). .. <;lf J;>a~ole aJld Post-Prison Supei:vision un~e:r; Or~ Re;v .. Stat. ~n. §' 14~ . .335 but the persoi). f$1s ,to ·s~ek judic.iaj revieyv of the. order in a .~imely .·milnner); Ayre~ v .. Boar~. of Parol~· an~. Pott.i frlson Supervision·, 194 Qr. App. ~29, 97 1 ~.3d 1. (2004):.(the legisl*ture has ~~dijiec;l ,in. § · ~44'.335 the·. ·g~nel'al nµe of, administrative law tAA~~-:-as to matters Within. the a4ntlni$trat.ive, agencY,s jurisdic­~on, judici~ revi~~ is only .availabl~ after' tl;le. proceciqre for r~lief Withi~. the adniW~trative body .itself has b~en .followed without success; it goe$ without··s~g th~f(or an a~strative remedy . ~ be ~xhallfJtible it mµst be avfillab~~; lµlder its own regulations, th~. B<;lard.m~t receiy~ reque~ts for. adiµiriist~ative. review witbµi 45 days. after. ~Q.e Iilailirig date . of t~e Board's·. filial action on ~he reviewed ~~s\u~; .. ~he. 45 · d~y .de~d!ine to submit. ad~i~strative· review req~est o(. de~ision pf the .. _Bqarp, so a~ to coinply; with eXhaustion 'of adminis~rative remecij.es re.qmre~ent, is .satisµed it unrepre13en~d "inillate'E;' aC:lm4tlstrative. review request js depos­ited in' theJnstitqtipnal· ~ail.sy8tell,i:.Qn.o~ pefore the 4Sth ~ay af­ter the mailing.date ·of the Board order to be reviewed; Boavd need-.P.ot receive that 'request wit;hill 45\ days of' maillllg dat~ 9f 9rd~r;.:the statutory.right to repres~ntatiQji by public defense 'ser­Vices · coAAsel. is. ~te<l to jµdicial 're~ew by the Oregon Coµrt of Appe~ µruief§) 144.335); pµt!~r, ~· Boarq of Parole, and Post~Pti~Q~ $upe,r.vis_ion:, 194, Or. App. 164~ f'4. P.3d 149 (2004)' (petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervi~io11: that ·d~nied· hi:qi ·re-r~lease after. the revocatio~' o( 'his parole,; stt;\tute an4 rµIe'. that autl)otjzed •tp.e denial' of i>~~le~'s re~ release by maj~rity deci~ion pf'a 'thr~e-person;~bo~d, rat:ii@_i;- t~an the. 1concurr~nce· of four members of a five'.'"i;>erson. board,. as. was require.d by a. statute. ~d -rill:e. iµ. effect., wh~n parol,ee cqnimitted ~ffens~s,' did. ntj~ ~olate ex pQs~· _f.ae~o. _claµs,e) .... ' . . . ' ' . ' '

§ '4o:'7o 'Writ' of ei±rir cor~ ·n:obls.. 'I ... ;

'•.. .·. ' ' ' . ' . . . ~ 2' ' ;

. Oregorrs coram nobis postconviction. remedy was abolished in 1959 by the Oregon UPCPA. Act .of.May 26, 1959,.~h.· 636, § 4(1), .

586

OREGON '. §.40:72

1959 Or~~ Laws' 13l·l,r~l3Jl :to 12 (currently codified at Or. Rev. Stak Ann. § ·138.540(1·)) (corairi nobis··and .tlie motion -in the. nature of coram nobis are abolished in criminal :cases). ·

.; :.~ 14' O ,,_;' ,. L ·~·~·- ·r:·~,· ·:i_:.~ ;: O •• (

§ 40:'71: · ·Postconviction DNA testing statute. : . . , _:Oregon's.' postcorivictl9ti .. te.stillg stat~te: i~ codifie(l;i~- Pr·. Rev .

. Stat. Anll· §§ 1;38.690 to 1,38~()~8 .. ,The st,a~ut~cy, s~ctjon 'contain­ing these provisions is entitled "Post-convicti,o~· motioll;J~:r DNA tes~ing." The statute was originally. enac.ted.m .. 12001 and. most recently amended' in 2015. , •. I , ;

11 1

' . • • . ,

>wiien a c~n~ction h~s-.b~en s~t. aside .as' the result. of.evidence obtaii;ted through DNA (d~oxyri]Jo,llucleic a.ci.d) .testing ,conducted und~r the Oregon postcox;tvictioµ.. DijA ~sting .. statute, tAe prose:­cution of any offense .thatj was disn;iissed. or,·no~ cqarged ;pursuant to a plea agreement that resulted in· the ~conviction. that .bas. been set aside may be commenced within the.later of: (l);tbe1period of limitation established for the. offense .. :uttder Or.· .Rev:.'. Stat~. ,Ann. §§.131.1251 to 131.155;: or (2) notwithstanding. Or. Rev. ·Stat .. Ann. §§, 1;n. i25 and 131.15q, tw.os~*1.rs. ~fter. the· da~~ the· coµviction was set aside. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann § 138.698. . ..

§ 40~'72 Postco:qvic~io~ DNA.·tes~i~g· st·atute-0~. Rev. Stat. · . Ann.§§ 1ss·.eso·,t~ 1ss.~D~TeXt. ·. ·. , .. ·

• . I •• • .... ) •·•1,,•

Oregon's postconviction DNA testing statute prov.ides:· · :·. • · .. § · 138.690. Eligibility to ifile motion· .. . '· · : · t · ' •

·.· '· · ·A person ·may file ·iii the circuit courf in: ·which the.judgment of conviction was entered· ·a motion requesting the performance of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing on specific evidence if the .person;has been convicted of aggravated murder or a felony ·in which DNA evidence· could exist· and; is relevant tor establish-

. ing an element' of the o:ffense.i . .·r:

§ 138.692. Aftj.davit requirements; testing' order .. (1.) (a) 'When a: person :files a. motion U;nder o~s 138.690 requesting the perform~ce of DNA (deoxyribonuc1eip acid)

· · testing on evidence,~ the mo.tion· must be supported· by' :an affidavit. The affidavit must: . :·x. ·,.._,.,,:

: · 1 (A) · Contain, a statement: that the person is inhocent of the 'offense for which the. person was· convi·cted; ':... · ,_. .

. ~ · (BJ ''Identify the evfde_nce . to' be 'tested' \Vith· as. much -1 1

,: 'specificity as is reaSbi;lably-1 pr~~~iCabl'e and·a 'theQ°ey of defense that the DNA testing. would~ support. ·The eviaence must have been securE!d· in connection with tthe ·prosecu­

.:. tion,. -including . the iriv;estigatioil,' !that· :resul.t.ed . ih the conviction of the person; 'and ... ,:;=

587

§ 40:72 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(C) Include the results of any previous DNA test of the evidence if a ·previous DNA·test was conducted by either the prosecution or the defense. . . (b) Consistent with the statement of innocence described

in paragraph (a)(A) of.this subsection, the person must p;re­sent a. prima facie ~hawing that DNA testing of the evidence would, assuining exculpatory results, lead to a finding that · the person is actually innocent of the offense for which the person was convicted. · · · · · (2) The state shall answer the motion requeijting the perfor­

mance of DNA testing and may refute the bas.is for the motion. (3) Upon the motion of a party or the court's own motion,··the

court Jllay allow the testimony of witnesses if the testimony will assist the court in making· its determination to ·grant or deny the motion requesting the performance of DNA testing. The· court may not allow testimony from; the victim of the of-· fense without the consent of the victim.

( 4) The court ·shall order .the DNA testing requested in a mo­tion under subsection (1) of this section if the court finds that:

· (a) The requirements of subsection (1) of this section have been met; ·

(b) Unless the parties stipulate othe;rwise, the evidence to be tested has. been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that the evidence has not been altered in any mate­rial aspect;

(c) The motion is made for.the p~rpose of demoD:strating the . innocence of the p.erson of the offense and not . to delay the execution of the se~ten~e .or administration of justice; and.. ·

(d). There is a reasonable possibility, assuming exculpatory results, that the testing would lead to a finding that the person is actually innocent of the offense for which the person .was convicted. (5) In granting a motion under this section, tl;ie court may

impos~ reasonable conditions desiglled to protect. the interests of. the·, state .in the integrity of the evidence .and the testing process. .

(6) Unless both parties agree or the court; finds compelling circumstances; otherwise, the ~ourt shall order the Department of State Police to. 9pnduct the QNA testing .. The court may or­der a ~econd test upon a showing that the state police failed to follow· appropriate DNA protocol~ and. that failure reasonably affected the accuracy of the DNA test.

(7) The costs of DNA tests ordered· under this section must be paid by:

588

OREGON § 4'0:72

...

589

§ 40~72 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REIJEF

(b): R appears to the court :that ,the. petitioner is, :financially unable to employ suitable' counsel possessing. skills.and expe­rience commensurate with the· nature and complexity ·of the

. matter. . . . ~ , . . , ( 4) An attorney. appointed under .this sectio11: .

. ,. (a) ~Lother th~~ cquns.~l p~oyided,_pursuant to·· ORS l.51.':t60, ... i_s. entitl~d_\ to. compensation and expenses .. as provided in ORS 135.055; or ...

. , .. ,(Q) ~f coµn.s_el provid~~ pµrs\}ant .to OR.S .151.460, is entiA~~l to; -~~pelis'es ps provid~~ in ORS .. 1,35_.05~, .... , .

.. § 188.696. Test results c ·

· - (1) ·If' ]})NA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing.ordered .under .'. ORS 138.692'. produces· inconclusive evidence or evid~ncethat is · unfavorable to the person requesting the testing:

• .: · ·(a} '11he coUrt' shall :forward the results to the ·State ·Board ··'of.Parole and:Post-Ptison·Supervision; and · '. (b) The Department· of State Police shall.compare the evi­

dence to DNA evidence from unsolved crime's in the· Combined .DNA Index System. ··'. · ' (2) If DNA testing ordered_ under ORS 138.692 · produces,

exculpatory evidenc~., .the .per$P:tl. who. requesteq the. ~estipg may file ;in. tI:te. cpur.t that Qrdered t~e ~esting .~.motion for a new~ trial :based on newly discove~ed .evidence. Notwithstandipg the ti'me limit established in ORCP 64 F;. a persQ~ may fil~ a

.. ~~t~o~, 1~de~ thi~. su,~section at any t~e .d~ng the .60-day pe­. nod that begins on the date the person receives the test results.

l '• ' • ' r < ' • ; : ' t < r-: • , ' ~ ' ' O ' ' • • ' '

.. - ._. ~~} ,Upop ~~c~i~t of a-. mptj;Qp)ile~ .. ~n~~~ su~sec~iOn '(2) of this ~.~eq~~OD: ap,<j pp~~_$~an~gµi~ t~e lumts.m1 0RCP p4 F,.Uie -court shall h~ar ~the. motion· pursuant to ORCP' 64. ·

l ~, J :_:-· '~ "'• • ..._, ~ • \ t - J, J _j f,, 1' I ., • I ' • ' · _ • , • • ' _ I

· (. § .. l~~~~fA'l~ 11 t:P~~al pr. ~~itatii:on:pf ~NA testing; appeal (1) A person described in ORS,.138.~.9.0 may appeal!to the

Court of Appeals from a circµit co~'s: fi~al ord~r pr judgment deny;i.i;ig <?f. lit¢: ting DNA. (qecixYrl])~D.ucleic actd),, testing under ORS '138.'692~· ~denying' appointment of counsel under ORS

· 138.694 or-denying a :ril.otion!for a1 n~w trial under ORS 138.696. (2) The state may appeal to< 'th~: Court of Appeals from a

circuit COUI?t's0 ~nal order. or judgment granting' a motion for DNA !testing 1un:der ORS= 138.692; or' granting a motion for a new trial under·ORS 138.696." ., · • 1 ~, • · • " i i • •

'· •: •. \ I t \ . ·• . ., , • • f: t ; ,_ \ • . . . -

·· (3). The 'time' 'limits )describad in· ORS 138.071~ the notice requirements ·descrilied"in- ORS 138.081 and 138.090 and the provisions' of ORS 138.225, 138.227, 138.240, 138.250 ·and

. 138.255 apply·to appeals under.this section.~unless the context requires otherwise. i · ·. · · ,_

590

I'·

I

OREGON·

. {4) A circuit court shall:appoint.counael to represent a person described in ORS 138.690,.on appeal 41 the same manner as for criminal defendants· under ORS 138:500>· ·.· . , 'C'. • ·

.'§ ·138.698. · ·. Plea ·&greements;-prose~ution of otlie~; often·. • " • : ses ' • • : :. i ; , \ : • ~ ·~ : ! • ' • " : . ' : I • • ' f . ~' (: I

.When a conviction has been sef aside'. as·: the ·restlit -~f' evi-. dence. obtained· ·thrdugliJDNA '(de~xynBoi\uCleic acidj't~$ti~g

conducted Wider ORS 138:_692~ i the· _pr<>secution of any bffense that was dismiss~c;I ··or not· ~barged 1ptiisuant to a ·plea agrel3• ment·that resulted in-the·t!on'viction=that has -been:set aside may be commenced 'Withiri !the later· off · · · .. ·. , · '

· ' · (1) The period of 1imitatibn · establishect'f~r ·the' ~off~nse · ·und.er ORS'l31.125 to l3~i~J55; or· · r., ·• · ·: • ~ · : : · · · : :, "

··' 1 (2). Notwith.standirtg __ ORS 131.12-5.'and 13:(155,

1 two years

after the. date· the cori.Viction 'was set h:side'. ~ .. ! ' • .. J • . . .

• • . ' ~ ' ~ ' j . ~· : ' ' ' t - ' ' ~ ' I

' ' : •, .~ ' ' • -' •; ' ' :··) ,' I ' .. ~ ~ •

§ 40:73' Oregon postconVfction. DN~te'st~g statut~~ase law 1

•. • · ·• • •• ~ .. ·:1 ·· · · • · •· · · ·"·

. -For case law, see, e.g., State v. Templeton,-·275 Or. App. 69, .364

P.3d·6 (2015) (defendant was convicted of murder and conspiracy to comi;nit murder in- 1991; more than 20 years. later;;defendant moved for postconvictfon DNA testing,.under Or. Rev-.;Stat.-Ann. §§ 138.690 and 138~692 and petitioned the trial court for ap~ pointed counsel· related. to ~he DNA~testing motion· ·under: Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-8.694; the trial ·court denied both. ;the motion and the. petition; in ·his. first assignment.of .error;-·defendant contends that,- bec.ause. he .. met all qf the ·statutory ;requirements set out in Or._ ·Rev. ·Stat .. Ann. § 138.694, which .. provides for the appointment of .counsel at .state expense for assistance with a DNA-testing motion. under Or •. Rev.· Stat. ,Ann .. §.188.692; · the

·trial-court erred in denying his petition for-appointed counsel;,in his second assignment,. defendant challep.ges,.,the: trial 'court's denial of his motion· for DNA testing; we conclude that, beca:use th~: DNA-testing. statutory scheme. does .not ·mandate _a two~step s~quence that renders untimely defendant's-petition for.appointed couns.el, .as asserte.d by the state, defendant should have been ·ap;. pointed :counsel and, ,accordingly, we rev~rse, -the .. trµil · ~o~t~s; or• der_ denying the ·appointe<tcounsel p_etition; we ·also··-vacate the trial:court's:otd.er .. denying, the :motion: :for1 !DNA1 testing);. State v~ Couch,. 27r/ Or. App .. 566, ~371iP.3d;1240 :(20.16); (a defendant filing a motion· for DNA testing ;1nus.t .s:tJpport jtht\:.imotion. with. an afti~ davit:that:satisfies the_; erite:ria:Jis.tedAn Or .. Rev .. $,tat.,,Ann. § 138._692; .the affidaVit. must ,.{1). contain· a statement that the person ·is , inno.cent. of th-e:.!offen_se, . fQr. which.1 .the. pereon .. wa.s

591

§':40:73 STATE PosrooNVIcTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

convicted or of the conduct underlying any mandatory sentence enhancement, (2) identify the speciffo evidence to be tested, and (3) identify a theory of defense that DNA testing would support; a!defendant.m.ust also present a. prima.facie showing .that DNA testing would establish the defendant's· actual innocence; to qual~fy for the appointment.of counsel under Or. ,Rev. Stat. Ann. § .138.694, a qefepdant. mus.~. include. 'a completed affid&vit of e~~bUity and an affidavit stating th~t th~· defendant is -innocent qft~.e charge or innocent of the conduct ~hat resulted in a manda­tory sentence enhancem~11t, th~t the identity of the perpetrator was at issue in the original prosecution, and that the defendant is ~without sufficient funds. and assets to hire an attorney; here, defendant failed to meet the releyant statutory requir~ments; here, the defendant's motion for DNA testing did not include an affi.daVit. that contairled (1) a statement that he was.innocent of the crimes for which lie had been· c'onvicted, (2) a description of the specific evidence to be tested, or (3) a defense theory of the case; ~s to .the appointment of counsel, the motion was not sup­ported by an affidavit averring that defendant was innocent of the charge or innocent of the conduct that resulted in a manda­tory sentence enhancement, or that the identity of the perpetra­tor was at issue in the original prosecution, as required under Or.· Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.694; because defendant did not satisfy the statutory requirements, we affirm the trial court's order deny­ing defendant's motion for DNA testing and the ·appointment of · counsel); State v. Romero, 274 Or. App. 590, 360 P.3d 1275 (2015), review denied, 358 Or. 794, 370 P.3d 502 (2016) (defendant ap­peals an order denying his motion for DNA testing under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.692; he contends that the trial court erred in denying his· motion for DNA testing for failure to present a prima facie case of actual innocence; we· hold that, because defendant's allegations were insufficient to make a prima facie showing of actual innocence, the trial court did not err in denying his motion for DNA testing; we therefore affirm;_ the first fact in issue is whether the identity of the perpetrator was at issue at trial,: a~d the second is whether DNA testing, assuming exculpa­tory :results, would "establish the actual innocence of the person/' Or. Rev~ Stat. Ann~ §.138.692(1)(b); we conclude that defendant failed .to produce enough evidence· to· ·allow. the trier of fact to infer either of those facts; DNA testing under Or. Rev. Stat.· Ann. § • 138~692 is a postconvietion ·remedy; in assessing whether a defendant· has made a prillia facie · sh'.oWing that:exclilpatory DNA evidence: would establish ~actual irtnocence, we are called upon to assess whether,there is 1some likelihood that such evidence would give rise to reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt; that is an assessment that necessarily requires 'an examination of the

592

OREGON § 40:74

proceedings that led to the defendant's conviction, and which cannot be made based on a concl usqry assertion of innocence, standing alone); State v. Thunderbird, 273 Or. App. 256, 359 P.3d 392 (2015), review· denied, 358 Or. 529, 367 P.3d 529 (2016) (trial court's order denying motion for postconvictio'.n. DNA testing is affirmed; the defendant identified in his motion the substances and genetic material that could be subjected to DNA testing, but his motion did not identify the specific evidence secured in con­nection with the prosecution that he was required to produce under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.692); State v. Harris, 272 Or. App. 774, 358 P.3d 313 (2015), review denied, 358 Or. 611, 369 P.3d 386 (2016) (the primary issue is whether an order that authorizes DNA testing,· but bars the defendant from later col­laterally attacking the defendant's judgment of conviction and sentence if the testing does not result in exculpatory evidence, is a limit on DNA testing such that the order is appealable under Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 138.697; we conclude that, under these cir­cumstances, it is not); State v. Johnson; 254 Or. App. 447, 295 P.3d 677 (2013) (discussing the statutory procedure for obtaining postconviction DNA testing).

§ 40:74 Erroneous Convictions Act

Oregon does not have an erroneous convictions act.

593

fbj 1:1 w hnB , n ~J i:;.':_i_ v,.~..;:; ?·- ~ r: Lb.:.b'}r,F ~-:j.~ ~_:j ; ::'.·~i °Ji:-' 1::\ 3;}G.:..b::.::!:.-•Yrq

~\;~~~·~~f ;~':l~.:~JI:,~t,i~:~:~;,1~~::~i~:~:~ij~m~::.:~J~;:If ~~~;:f.'ii~ ~!r).(!.tTJod1J~ ~.f! ~ r1~:;J.-;·0I1r ~·ii{ i~l b::;.lli:i :·!~~:.h.~ J ;1EJ.1r::·n, :f' ~-Hf! ~b'.Jrr~?·:•·e t~i j·.uc~ .·ni:iJ~~t..1i ::,f,,-T'] ('·~· fl,~·.-}·'\~°'-'!'(ft;:.• C\~: f1 !:-rtJ'i._jr.>•fh 1'1:~l;f•"1'.'.~•~t< ·~·1. .. ·tnr1::;·r~· i·r1:-:

• ~ (" ~ .. ~ ,_. \, ~ • - • .1 •. .. - ~ ~~ ~ •• • . ••• "'-- . ··' .. .... • . ., •• , • . .. ' •• ,_.... .. • . • ..., . . .....~ -· .. .. ..

·fib~ rt.i::hs:w:;-=-"~'. ~;1~H:i'.1i:; '.' ·., !)i.l.L>f.)ti2 •-:, r? · (J.iJ!1d::.i: :1;'.)ti hJb· 1w b:_'.ffl 8frl s-:>JJbo-f.q ·c-rb~:·fL:p~r: ?.w . ..- ·.;:1i-)~fri;; l•o:.~i :;f1~1(Yttr 0 .. -i~J'-~1v:· J°•' •. -l:_;j:·.~n

. -~H~~ •. ~'.-~~~- .i'J.·~-~~:~:- _..'.J :,~·r,~~-~. ,:( f~~:a ~CI_.~·. r'.;\·•<\_. :: :.::i :~~ : '.'~~~?. !-.~.~-~._'1---,l.iF ~~' H)~·. '..[Le ,T\). dr;2 (fr·Hf!:;l~ ··;/0n.T<1'i _{(t~.d~:~ >-;_i \~ t;~·:· ··: ~H::-~ \:i \'. ;'_l~ n. ,H~fiJ ·.mb1,.-, tu~ ·n::i1::;f.~; r.::i ~;:m;e! i1":(B.trfrr1:;- 1..,rf:ri i~~-ln~'.f c!G/ tt.'·1

: ·~ ', . " ' I ' • •

· f D)::~~;g:I.i~f F~g~f /~i:~1i~:~;~~~zi1}~!i:. ~(~~ljlq~~J:;}ig,~ .. · · ···i'.:.' 93~::;L· :t:.::Hti~ ~.111.!.t;: ;.,bub!J'T -~W :Yl~o 8i·:J -~~:.tu~/,; J/;J2 .v-::;.)f .'r0 f.;~.~!£ .- ~ l~\ ~·i" . q{I P~ . ~! fj 1~<~~;: :· .! ·, r .. ~:->.': ·~\.c\., .. \:' ~~.~ ~;~~\ .~ (.; .~·· r· ·!~! i .. ; f .. ed.~: ~1 c.J~ffp.J~} .

, nfo i m, fo 10} ,,::-;; f w, . ,., ;i ~::, , : " 1 'P 0

, ,fa, i~~;~; ·:1, i ~{ c\",; :1~.i;; \~ ;:,L~~:l'<~ .

\ I

1.

1 \ ' \.

. ~ I

•,

\