Appeals

ORS 138.627
Victim’s rights


(1)

To accord crime victims due dignity and respect, a victim of a crime that is the subject of a petition for post-conviction relief filed under ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) has, upon request, the following rights:

(a)

The right to have the victim’s schedule taken into account in scheduling the post-conviction proceedings;

(b)

The right to inspect, in advance of the post-conviction proceedings, any public record on which the disposition of the petition will be based;

(c)

The right to be heard, either orally or in writing, at the hearing;

(d)

The right to consult with counsel for the state regarding the post-conviction proceeding, including, if applicable, notice of and the opportunity to consult regarding a settlement agreement; and

(e)

The right to be informed by counsel for the state of the manner in which the petition was disposed.

(2)

As used in this section, “victim” has the meaning given that term in ORS 131.007 (“Victim” defined). [2010 c.89 §2]
Note: 138.627 (Victim’s rights) was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 138 or any series therein by legislative action. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
§§ 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