Baker v. State

“Where the state has not asserted and proved any of the procedural defenses set out in the PCHA, a court must grant post-conviction relief for any denial of a constitutional right that is both consequential and offensive.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 630-31 (2022).

Petitioner sought relief under Oregon’s Post-Conviction Hearings Act (PCHA) from two counts of his 1986 convictions, which had been decided by nonunanimous jury verdicts. His petition was untimely under ORS 138.510(4). Petitioner assigned error to the trial court's acceptance of nonunaminous jury verdicts. Petitioner argued that the application of ORS 135.510(4), which requires “all-post convictions that became final before August 5, 1989, to have been filed no later than November 4, 1994,” violated Article I, sections 10 or 23, of the Oregon Constitution. “Where the state has not asserted and proved any of the procedural defenses set out in the PCHA, a court must grant post-conviction relief for any denial of a constitutional right that is both consequential and offensive.” Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 630-31 (2022). The Court reasoned that, because Petitioner was no longer in custody and habeas corpus remedies are available only to those in custody, the statute did not deprive him of a habeas corpus remedy. Likewise, the Court found that because Petitioner was out of custody and completed his sentence, he had not demonstrated that his nonunanimous jury conviction deprived him of a coram nobis remedy. Additionally, the state had proven a procedural defense. Thus, Petitioner’s untimely petition did not violate Article I, Sections 10 or 13. AFFIRMED.