Aponte v. State of Oregon

“Under Perez . . . the relevant question for escape-clause purposes is ‘whether a claim reasonably could have been raised from counsel’s perspective; petitioner’s age and other personal characteristics have no role in the analysis.’” Perez v. Cain, 367 Or 96, 113, 473 P.3d 540, 549 (2020).

Petitioner appealed dismissal of post-conviction claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court’s finding that the claim was both “untimely and successive,” and “escape clauses” under ORS 138.510(3) and ORS 138.550(3) did not apply. Petitioner argued that he was “reasonably unable” to file the claim sooner due to mental disability. “Under Perez . . . the relevant question for escape-clause purposes is ‘whether a claim reasonably could have been raised from counsel’s perspective; petitioner’s age and other personal characteristics have no role in the analysis.’” Perez v. Cain, 367 Or 96, 113, 473 P.3d 540, 549 (2020). The Court relied on its precedent in cases where a claim for post-conviction relief was either untimely or successive, or both. The Court reasoned that unless a petitioner was unrepresented, the “reasonableness inquiry” was conducted from the representing attorney’s perspective. The Court concluded that Perez controlled, and the post-conviction court did not err in dismissing Petitioner’s post-conviction claim. Affirmed.