2015 ORS 138.510¹
Persons who may file petition for relief
  • time limit

(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 138.540 (Petition for relief as exclusive remedy for challenging conviction), any person convicted of a crime under the laws of this state may file a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title).

(2) A petition for post-conviction relief may be filed by one person on behalf of another person who has been convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death only if the person filing the petition demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(a) The person sentenced to death is unable to file a petition on the person’s own behalf due to mental incapacity or because of a lack of access to the court; and

(b) The person filing the petition has a significant relationship with the person sentenced to death and will act in the best interest of the person on whose behalf the petition is being filed.

(3) A petition pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) must be filed within two years of the following, unless the court on hearing a subsequent petition finds grounds for relief asserted which could not reasonably have been raised in the original or amended petition:

(a) If no appeal is taken, the date the judgment or order on the conviction was entered in the register.

(b) If an appeal is taken, the date the appeal is final in the Oregon appellate courts.

(c) If a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court is filed, the later of:

(A) The date of denial of certiorari, if the petition is denied; or

(B) The date of entry of a final state court judgment following remand from the United States Supreme Court.

(4) A one-year filing period shall apply retroactively to petitions filed by persons whose convictions and appeals became final before August 5, 1989, and any such petitions must be filed within one year after November 4, 1993. A person whose post-conviction petition was dismissed prior to November 4, 1993, cannot file another post-conviction petition involving the same case.

(5) The remedy created by ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) is available to persons convicted before May 26, 1959.

(6) In any post-conviction proceeding pending in the courts of this state on May 26, 1959, the person seeking relief in such proceedings shall be allowed to amend the action and seek relief under ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title). If such person does not choose to amend the action in this manner, the law existing prior to May 26, 1959, shall govern the case. [1959 c.636 §§1,16,17; 1989 c.1053 §18; 1993 c.517 §1; 1999 c.1055 §7; 2007 c.292 §1]

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)

"Laws of this state" means laws enacted by state, not municipality; those convicted under municipal ordinance are not convicted under laws of this state. Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 761 P2d 502 (1988)

Filing of timely peti­tion is not re­quired in order for untimely peti­tion to be "sub­se­quent peti­tion" asserting relief that could not reasonably have been raised in original or amended peti­tion. Fine v. Zenon, 114 Or App 183, 834 P2d 509 (1992)

"Subsequent peti­tion" means post-con­vic­­tion peti­tion filed after expira­tion of applicable limita­tion period of this sec­tion. Fine v. Zenon, 114 Or App 183, 834 P2d 509 (1992)

Where Court of Appeals decided after period for seeking post-con­vic­­tion relief had expired that language in sen­ten­cing guide­lines was unconstitu­tionally vague, defendants could not file for relief. Mora v. Maass, 120 Or App 173, 851 P2d 1154 (1993), aff'd 319 Or 570, 877 P2d 641 (1994)

Peti­tioner who neglected to ap­peal Parole Board order sustaining 15 year min­i­mum sen­tence may not challenge parole considera­tion date in habeas corpus pro­ceed­ing where date was set at expira­tion of min­i­mum sen­tence and peti­tioner could not demonstrate other grounds for relief. Sager v. Board of Parole, 121 Or App 607, 856 P2d 329 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where correct in­for­ma­­tion is available from other sources, receipt of erroneous advice does not make in­for­ma­­tion type that could not reasonably have been raised during 120-day period. Brown v. Baldwin, 131 Or App 356, 885 P2d 707 (1994), Sup Ct review denied

One-year limit for filing post-con­vic­­tion peti­tion relating to con­vic­­tion becoming final before August 5, 1989, is consistent with right of habeas corpus, notwithstanding lack of escape clause. Wallis v. Baldwin, 152 Or App 295, 954 P2d 192 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Where late peti­tion seeks relief based on change in law or new legal pronounce­ment, grounds for relief could "reasonably have been raised" earlier if legal principle underlying change or pronounce­ment was sufficiently settled and familiar that defendant could have anticipated and raised issue in timely manner. Long v. Armenakis, 166 Or App 94, 999 P2d 461 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Mental disorder does not constitute ground for relief justifying untimely filing of peti­tion. Fisher v. Belleque, 237 Or App 405, 240 P3d 745 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

68 OLR 270 (1989)

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)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 138—Appeals; Post-Conviction Relief, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors138.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 138, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano138.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.