Mann v. DeCamp

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 08-31-2016
  • Case #: A152797
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under State v. McDonnell, a judgment from a judge who lacks authority to render the judgment is voidable, but is not automatically void if the court has subject matter jurisdiction.

Mann appealed a judgment dismissing his petition for post­conviction relief on the grounds that it was untimely under ORS 138.510(3) and impermissibly successive under ORS 138.550(3). On appeal, Mann argued that the judge that entered his original convictions did not have the judicial authority to do so, and thus he was inadequately represented by counsel for not challenging the authority of the judge when he was convicted. Lack of judicial authority is distinct from all other post­conviction relief claims, and not subject to statutory restraints on collateral attacks. The Court dismissed Mann’s arguments, because Mann’s arguments were essentially an argument for ineffective assistance of counsel, which are subject to the requirements of ORS 138.510(3) and 138.550(3). Further, even if the judge did not have authority to preside over the case, under State v. McDonnell, 343 Or 557, 176 P3d 1236 (2007), a judgment from a court lacking authority is voidable, but is not void if the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Affirmed.

Advanced Search