Field v. Myrick

“In Bogle, the court indicated that when faced with a church motion, a post-conviction court is being asked for one of two possible remedies—‘to either replace counsel or instruct counsel to raise those grounds for relief.’” Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 470-71, 423 P3d 715 (2018).

Petitioner appealed a ruling by the post-judgment court which denied Petitioner's petition for relief for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Petitioner assigned error to the court’s handling of his Church motion, wherein he petitioned the court with additional claims he wished to bring and that his post-conviction trial counsel should have brought. On appeal, Petitioner continued his claim for relief. “In Bogle, the court indicated that when faced with a church motion, a post-conviction court is being asked for one of two possible remedies—‘to either replace counsel or instruct counsel to raise those grounds for relief.’” Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 470-71, 423 P3d 715 (2018). The court analyzed Petitioner’s claim in light of Bogle, holding that the post-conviction court applied an “incorrect analytical framework” concerning the Church motion. The remedy being sought was not the inclusion of the claims under the Church motion but was a request under ORCP 23 for leave to amend the petition, after his post-judgment counsel conceded he should have brought those claims. The Court went on to cite, under ORCP 23, proponents are free to amend “when justice so requires,” so that the post-conviction court should have allowed petitioner leave, to amend the petition with the additional claims. Ramsey v. Thompson, 162 Or App 139, 145 986 P2d 54 (1999), rev den, 329 Or 589 (2000).

Reversed and remanded as to the claims in the Church motion; otherwise affirmed.