McDonnell v. Premo

“Although the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not explicitly list summary judgment as a procedure available to challenge claims, the Act does not preclude it.”

Petitioner appealed a judgment that denied his petition for postconviction relief. Petitioner was tried and convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death under the ORS 163.095(2)(f). The post-conviction court denied relief to Petitioner. Petitioner contended that the post-conviction court erred because of an ineffective court and counsel. Petitioner also argued that the statute was outdated and should not be followed. The Court followed Wagner which provides that the statute survives 8th Amendment scrutiny because it did not limit the jury’s ability to consider mitigating circumstances. State v. Wagner, 305 Or 115, 160, 752 P2d 1136 (1988). The Court dismissed the rest of the arguments because the post-conviction proceedings are not direct appeals and do not deprive a defendant of the full protections afforded under the law. “Although the Post-Conviction Hearing Act does not explicitly list summary judgment as a procedure available to challenge claims, the Act does not preclude it.” Therefore, the Court rejected Petitioner’s assignments of error and affirmed the decision of the lower court. Affirmed.