Karplyuk v. State

Timing of the filing and prompt resolution of a case play a role in whether or not to grant a motion for leave to amend a post-conviction complaint.

On December 15, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. On September 2, 2022, Petitioner moved to amend his petition with an additional claim. Petitioner’s motion was denied due to timing, as the trial date had been set to September 15, 2022. Petitioner appealed the judgment, asserting that the court erred in abusing its discretion by denying his motion. Petitioner argued that under ORCP 23 A, the ability to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice requires.” The Court reasoned that had Petitioner’s motion been granted, the State would have been prejudiced due to the significant adjustment in the case and the extended amount of work required to defend against a new claim so close to trial. Cf. RLF Liquidating, LLC v. McDonald Brother, Inc., 318 Or App 321, 327, 507 P3d 758, rev den, 369 Or 733 (2022) Additionally, Petitioner did not request a continuance. The post-conviction court aimed to resolve Petitioner’s case “as promptly as possible” given that Petitioner was in ICE custody and faced deportation. The Court concluded that the post-conviction court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motion. AFFIRMED.