Velasco v. State of Oregon

In determining whether a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense, the court should look for “four distinct events: (1) defendant’s act of pleading guilty or a jury’s act in reporting a verdict of guilty; (2) acceptance by the trial judge of the guilty plea or verdict; (3) conviction of the defendant on the plea or verdict; and (4) pronouncement and entry of defendant’s sentence.” State v. McDonnell, 306 Or 579, 581-82, 761 P2d 921 (1988).

Petitioner appealed from a judgment that denied his petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) under Oregon's Post-Conviction Hearing Act. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he was never convicted, thus authorizing the court to deny his petition for PCR. On appeal, Petitioner argued that just because the court dismissed his charge after completing a conditional discharge, it did not mean he was never “convicted.” In response, the State argued that because Plaintiff entered a plea on conditional discharge, meaning a conviction was never entered against Plaintiff, a PCR was not available to him. In determining whether a defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense, the court should look for “four distinct events: (1) defendant’s act of pleading guilty or a jury’s act in reporting a verdict of guilty; (2) acceptance by the trial judge of the guilty plea or verdict; (3) conviction of the defendant on the plea or verdict; and (4) pronouncement and entry of defendant’s sentence.” State v. McDonnell, 306 Or 579, 581-82, 761 P2d 921 (1988). The Oregon Court of Appeals held that judgment for “conviction” was never actually entered because the case was treated as a “conditional discharge,” which meant Defendant was placed on probation without entering a judgment of guilt, and the only way Defendant would be “guilty” was if he violated his probation, which he did not. Affirmed.