Perez v. Cain

“In deciding if a claim may be heard on appeal, the court reviews claims on a case-by-case basis to determine if they reasonably could have been anticipated so as to have been raised and settled earlier.” Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 571 (2015) (quoting Long v. Armenakis, 166 Or App 94, 101, 999 P2d 461 (2000)).

Petitioner appealed a conviction of four counts of aggravated murder. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court’s holding that he reasonably could have raised his argument prior to the decision of State v. J.C. N.-V., 359 Or 559, 597, 380 P3d 248 (2016). On appeal, Petitioner argued the juvenile court’s acceptance of his waiver to remove him from juvenile court to adult court was unconstitutional under the waiver standard applied in J.C N.-V. In response, Respondent argued that the legal principles on which J.C. N.-V. was decided “did not alter the law in a…‘novel, unprecedented, or surprising’” way; thus, it could not be the basis of Petitioner’s argument. “In deciding if a claim may be heard on appeal, the court reviews claims on a case-by-case basis to determine if they reasonably could have been anticipated so as to have been raised and settled earlier.” Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 571 (2015) (quoting Long v. Armenakis, 166 Or App 94, 101, 999 P2d 461 (2000)). The Court found that Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that he reasonably could not have raised his argument at the time of the underlying juvenile court proceedings. Thus, the Court held that the post-conviction court did not err. Affirmed.