- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 10-12-2023
- Case #: No. S069222
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J., for the Court; Flynn, C.J.; Garrett, J.; DeHoog, J.; James, J.; Balmer, S.J.; Walter, S.J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner sought post-conviction relief more than eight years after his convictions became final. ORS 138.510(3) requires petitions for post-conviction relief “must be filed within two years” of final judgment unless the ground for relief “could not reasonably have been raised” within those two years (the escape clause). The post-conviction court denied the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner appealed.
Petitioner argued that the escape clause should apply because he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and treated such that he was unable to file. Further, he argued that the clause should apply when a ground for relief was not “reasonably available” to the petitioner within the limitations period. Gutale v. State of Oregon, 364 Or 502, 435 P3d 728 (2019). The State argued that petitioner’s mental impairments are irrelevant to whether the escape clause applies. Fisher v. Belleque, 237 Or App 405, 240 P3d 745 (2010). The State further argues that the text of the statute makes it clear that personal characteristics cannot be considered in determining if relief was “reasonably available.”
The Court considered the text of the statute, caselaw, and legislative history and found that the escape clause is intended to ask not “whether a petitioner conceivably could have raised the grounds for relief,” but “whether the petitioner reasonably could have raised those grounds.” Verduzco v. State of Oregon, 357 Or 553, 555 n 1 (2015). The Court held that “the escape clause applies when, given the circumstances that existed during the limitations period, it would be unreasonable to expect the petitioner to have filed a timely petition[.]”
Reversed and remanded.