Appeals

ORS 138.540
Petition for relief as exclusive remedy for challenging conviction

  • when petition may not be filed
  • abolition or availability of other remedies


(1)

Except as otherwise provided in ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title), a petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) shall be the exclusive means, after judgment rendered upon a conviction for a crime, for challenging the lawfulness of such judgment or the proceedings upon which it is based. The remedy created by ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) does not replace or supersede the motion for new trial, the motion in arrest of judgment or direct appellate review of the sentence or conviction, and a petition for relief under ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) shall not be filed while such motions or appellate review remain available. With the exception of habeas corpus, all common law post-conviction remedies, including the motion to correct the record, coram nobis, the motion for relief in the nature of coram nobis and the motion to vacate the judgment, are abolished in criminal cases.

(2)

When a person restrained by virtue of a judgment upon a conviction of crime asserts the illegality of the restraint upon grounds other than the unlawfulness of such judgment or the proceedings upon which it is based or in the appellate review thereof, relief shall not be available under ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) but shall be sought by habeas corpus or other remedies, if any, as otherwise provided by law. As used in this subsection, such other grounds include but are not limited to unlawful revocation of parole or conditional pardon or completed service of the sentence imposed. [1959 c.636 §4]

Law Review Citations

68 OLR 271 (1989)

§§ 138.510 to 138.680

Notes of Decisions

Any person who is convicted of a crime may seek relief under this section, whether or not he is in custody, regardless of whether his conviction is for a felony or misdemeanor. Morasch v. State, 261 Or 299, 493 P2d 1364 (1972)

Habeas corpus is a proper method of questioning the constitutionality of treatment accorded prisoners. Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)

These sections afforded plain, speedy and adequate remedy in lower courts and state Supreme Court would not exercise original habeas corpus jurisdiction. Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F2d 233 (1981)

Post-conviction relief is not suspension of writ of habeas corpus; it provides different procedure but retains all necessary substantive and procedural advantages of the writ. Atkeson v. Cupp, 68 Or App 196, 680 P2d 772 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Post-conviction relief under these sections is available to those convicted of DUII Class A traffic infractions to remedy constitutional violations. Evers v. State, 69 Or App 450, 685 P2d 1024 (1984)

Availability of post-conviction relief to persons convicted under state law but not to those convicted under municipal law does not violate Article I, section 20, or equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment, because persons convicted under municipal law do not constitute true class, and there is no discriminatory application of law. Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 761 P2d 502 (1988)

Granting of delayed appeal authorized where necessary to rectify substantial denial of constitutional rights. State v. Macy, 316 Or 335, 851 P2d 579 (1993)

Federal constitutional principle requiring that facts that increase penalty for crime beyond statutory maximum be submitted to jury does not apply retroactively to afford post-conviction relief. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

State will retroactively apply new federal rule regarding constitutionality only if rule places certain kinds of conduct beyond proscription or if procedural rule affects fundamental fairness required for accurate conviction. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

Law Review Citations

68 OLR 269 (1989)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021