Walton v. Myrick

"ORS 138.550(3) places a ‘limit on successive post-conviction proceedings’ and is meant to disallow ‘serial litigation’ of post-conviction claims." Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 455, 458, 476-477, 423 P3d 715 (2018). "The fact that a represented petitioner failed in his or her effort o raise additonal claims in the original post-conviction proceeding . . . will not justify the filing of a new, successive post-conviction petition under ORS 138.550(3)." Id. at 477-78.

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying his 2015 successive petition for post-conviction relief for claims of inadequate assistance of counsel and prosecutorial-misconduct. On appeal, Petitioner assigned error to the court granting summary judgment on the claims (other than the inadequate assistance of appellate counsel) because his petition was admissible under an “escape clause.” "ORS 138.550(3) places a ‘limit on successive post-conviction proceedings’ and is meant to disallow ‘serial litigation’ of post-conviction claims." Bogle v. State of Oregon, 363 Or 455, 458, 476-477, 423 P3d 715 (2018). "The fact that a represented petitioner failed in his or her effort o raise additonal claims in the original post-conviction proceeding . . . will not justify the filing of a new, successive post-conviction petition under ORS 138.550(3)." Id. at 477-78. The Court held that, under Bogle, Petitioner is not entitled to file successive petitions to raise claims that were unsuccessfuly raised in the post-convictions proceeding in which he was represented by counsel.  Affirmed.