- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 02-28-2019
- Case #: S065136
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Nelson, J., for the majority; Walters, C.J.; Nakamoto, J.; DeHoog, J.; & Balmer, J., dissenting, joined by Kistler, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed a dismissal of post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the state's dismissal of his post-conviction relief request as time barred under ORS 138.510(3). Petitioner argued that the actions of his counsel and the trial court gave him no reason to suspect that he may face immigration issues as a result of his pleading guilty at trial; meaning he could not have reasonably known that he would need to marshal a defense within a two-year statute of limitations. The state argued that the bases for the claim were reasonably available to the petitioner. The Court has made clear "that a ground for relief reasonably could have been raised under one of two circumstances: (1) when the ground for relief was known or (2) when the ground for relief was reasonably available, despite not being known." Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 566, 355 P3d 902 (2015). The Court held that Petitioner's post-conviction claim should not have been dismissed because the escape clause in ORS 138.510(3) is based on the reasonableness of an unrepresented petitioner rather than on the reasonableness of counsel.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.