- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 11-18-2020
- Case #: A167307
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J., and Tookey, J., and Aoyagi, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed an order denying post-conviction relief. Petitioner argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion for leave to amend her petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner asserted that the court incorrectly analyzed the four Ramsey factors. In response, the State argued that all four Ramsey factors weighed against allowing Petitioner to amend her petition. The four Ramsey considerations that a post-conviction court may review in determining whether to allow amendment are: “(1) the nature of the proposed amendments and their relationship to the existing pleadings; (2) the prejudice, if any, to the opposing party; (3) the timing of the proposed amendments and related docketing concerns; and (4) the colorable merit of the proposed amendments.” Eklof v. Persson, 307 Or App 585, 589 (2020). The Court found that the record contained evidence from earlier proceedings that were closely related to the current claim and therefore that the court could have reasonably concluded that Petitioner’s amended claim was not colorable. Thus, the Court held that the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Petitioner’s leave to amend. Affirmed.