Marshall v. Meyers

“[W]e now hold that, when a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief, on Sixth Amendment grounds, from a judgment of conviction which was based on a nonunamimous verdict and which became final before the Supreme Court’s Ramos decision issued, the petitioner is entitled to relief - assuming that none of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings Act have been raised and sustained.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022).

Appellant appealed the denial of post-conviction relief in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 US ___, 140 (2020), which requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious felony in accordance with the Sixth Amendment. The Court considered the Oregon Supreme Court’s interpretation of Ramos in Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 607 (2022). It determined the State offered the same retroactive arguments that the Supreme Court rejected in Watkins in this case. “[W]e now hold that, when a petitioner seeks post-conviction relief, on Sixth Amendment grounds, from a judgment of conviction which was based on a nonunamimous verdict and which became final before the Supreme Court’s Ramos decision issued, the petitioner is entitled to relief - assuming that none of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings Act have been raised and sustained.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604 (2022). The Court concluded that the post-conviction court erred when it denied the Appellant’s retroactive Ramos claims because she had been convicted of several felonies with a nonunanimous verdict. Reversed and Remanded.