Perez-Rodriguez v. State of Oregon

The “escape clause” of the statute of limitations in the Post-Conviction Relief Act must be “construed narrowly” and only applies in “extraordinary circumstances.” Bartz v. State of Oregon, 314 Or 353, 839 P2d 217 (1992).

Petitioner appealed from a ruling by the Court of Appeals that determined the “escape clause” to the statute of limitations of the Post-Conviction Relief Act did not apply to him. Petitioner argued that the "escape clause" applied to him because his defense attorney, during his criminal trial, did not advise him, with certainty, of the potential immigration ramifications of his criminal conviction when he pled guilty; resulting in Defendant being unaware of the possible immigration consequences until deportation proceedings began. Alternatively, Petitioner argued his "mental illness" or "intellectual disability" should have justified applying the "escape clause." The “escape clause” of the statute of limitations in the Post-Conviction Relief Act must be “construed narrowly” and only applies in “extraordinary circumstances.” Bartz v. State of Oregon, 314 Or 353, 839 P2d 217 (1992). The Supreme Court held that Petitioner’s case was not one in which to apply the "escape clause" because Petitioner was told about the risk of immigration consequences when he was convicted and it was up to him to "determine what those immigration consequences might be and whether his trial counsel had failed to accurately communicate those consequences to him." Additionally, the Court held that the parties failed to sufficiently argue the questions related to Petitioner's "mental illness" or "intellectual disability" so the Court was not required to resolve those questions.

Affirmed.