Ogle v. Nooth

A post-conviction court may grant relief relating to matters that are “within the scope of [the] pleaded claims,” Reynolds v. Lampert, 170 Or App 780, 787, 13 P3d 1038 (2000), or “directly traceable to the allegations of the petition.” Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 291, 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75, cert den, 537 US 901 (2002).

Defendant appealed a judgment granting post-conviction relief to Plaintiff. Defendant assigned error to the post-conviction court’s grant of relief to Plaintiff regarding his amended petition. On appeal, Defendant argued the court granted post-conviction relief in error because Plaintiff failed to allege in his amended petition for the type of relief the court granted. In response, Plaintiff argued that even though the court relied on a different theory of prejudice than he alleged, the basis for relief remained the same because his amended petition focused on an inadequate-assistance claim that was related to his original petition. Additionally, Plaintiff argued his theory of relief was a “specification” within “claims that actually have been alleged” in his petition. A post-conviction court may grant relief relating to matters that are “within the scope of [the] pleaded claims,” Reynolds v. Lampert, 170 Or App 780, 787, 13 P3d 1038 (2000), or “directly traceable to the allegations of the petition.” Abbott v. Baldwin, 178 Or App 289, 291, 36 P3d 516 (2001), rev den, 334 Or 75, cert den, 537 US 901 (2002). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that the post-conviction court erred because it could not have awarded relief on the basis of allegations that were not set forth in Plaintiff’s petition and did not fall “within the scope of the pleaded claims.” Reversed.