Blain v. Cain

“In the posture of a post-conviction proceeding . . . a petitioner must establish a denial of rights of constitutional magnitude ‘in the proceedings resulting in [the] petitioner’s conviction.’” ORS 138.530(1)(a).

Blain appealed denial of post-conviction relief after pleading guilty to four drug-related charges and receiving a prison sentence. Blain argued that his trial counsel was constitutionally inadequate for failing to file a motion to suppress. Alternatively, Blain argued that 2019 Oregon Supreme Court decision, State v. Lien/Wilverding, should apply retroactively to his convictions and render them void. “In the posture of a post-conviction proceeding . . . a petitioner must establish a denial of rights of constitutional magnitude ‘in the proceedings resulting in [the] petitioner’s conviction.’” ORS 138.530(1)(a). The Court found the record contained no evidence that Blain suffered prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to raise a legal argument that, at the time, had not yet been used “to overturn longstanding precedent.” The Court reasoned that to find a constitutional defect “in the proceedings,” it must look at the plea proceedings alone. The Court found Blain’s “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” guilty plea formed the basis of his conviction. The Court concluded that any government conduct prior to that plea was irrelevant to the resulting convictions. Affirmed.