- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 09-27-2017
- Case #: A158597
- Judge(s)/Court Below: DeHoog, J. for the Court; DeVore, P.J.; & James, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed the dismissal of a successive claim for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the court's dismissal of the successive claim. On appeal, Petitioner argued that his claim should not have been dismissed because the statute of limitations in ORS 138.510(3) applied to only original petitions, not successive petitions. Additionally, Petitioner claimed that he wasn't aware of the alleged grounds for relief until after the post-conviction court ruled on his original petition for relief. In response, Superintendent argued that because Petitioner knew of the contested grounds for relief before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the claim was barred as untimely, and the escape clause was not applicable. ORS 138.510(3) requires that a petition for post-conviction relief be brought within two years from the date of the final interlocutory judgment, unless the court determines that the contested grounds for relief in a subsequent petition could not have been reasonably raised in the original petition. The Court of Appeals, based on precedent in Bartz v. State of Oregon, 314 OR 353 (1992), concluded that the statute of limitations in the escape clause of ORS 138.510(3) applied to both original and successive petitions for post-conviction relief. Since Petitioner conceded that he was aware of the contested grounds for relief prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, he was barred from obtaining relief under the successive petition. Affirmed.