Chavez v. State of Oregon

Pursuant to ORS 138.510(3), "[a] petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the challenged conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition."

Petitioner challenged a trial court dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court's dismissal of his claims as untimely and for refusing to retroactively apply Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 US 356, 130 S Ct 1473, 176 L Ed 2d 284 (2010).  Petitioner argued that the decision in Padilla demonstrated that his attorney did not provide advice required by the Sixth Amendment and that ORS 138.530(1)(a) requires all new constitutional rules be applied retroactively.  The State argued that Petitioner's two-year statute of limitations expired in 2001, at which point Petitioner should have anticipated, or reasonably raised, his Sixth Amendment claim. Pursuant to ORS 138.510(3), "[a] petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 must be filed within two years of the [date that the challenged conviction became final], unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition." The Court held that Petitioner's claim was not untimely because he could not have reasonably anticipated Padilla's holding and therefore his petition falls within an escape clause of ORS 138.510(3); however, because ORS 138.530 does not require all new constitutional rules be applied retroactively, the Court chose not to do so. 

Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.