2015 ORS 138.560¹
Procedure upon filing petition for relief
  • filing fee
  • venue and transfer of proceedings

(1) A proceeding for post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) shall be commenced by filing a petition with the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner is imprisoned or, if the petitioner is not imprisoned, with the clerk of the circuit court for the county in which the petitioners conviction and sentence was rendered. Except as otherwise provided in ORS 138.590 (Petitioner may proceed as a financially eligible person), the petitioner must pay the filing fee established under ORS 21.135 (Standard filing fee) at the time of filing a petition under this section. If the petitioner prevails, the petitioner shall recover the fee pursuant to the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure. The clerk of the court in which the petition is filed shall enter and file the petition and bring it promptly to the attention of such court. A copy of the petition need not be served by petitioner on the defendant, but, in lieu thereof, the clerk of the court in which the petition is filed shall immediately forward a copy of the petition to the Attorney General or other attorney for the defendant named in ORS 138.570 (Who shall be named as defendant).

(2) For the purposes of ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title), a person released on parole or conditional pardon shall be deemed to be imprisoned in the institution from which the person is so released.

(3) Except when petitioners conviction was for a misdemeanor, the release of the petitioner from imprisonment during the pendency of proceedings instituted pursuant to ORS 138.510 (Persons who may file petition for relief) to 138.680 (Short title) shall not cause the proceedings to become moot. Such release of petitioner shall not change the venue of the proceedings out of the circuit court in which the proceedings were commenced and shall not affect the power of such court to transfer the proceedings as provided in subsection (4) of this section.

(4) Whenever the petitioner is imprisoned in a Department of Corrections institution and the circuit court for the county in which the petitioner is imprisoned finds that the hearing upon the petition can be more expeditiously conducted in the county in which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced, the circuit court upon its own motion or the motion of a party may order the petitioners case to be transferred to the circuit court for the county in which petitioners conviction and sentence were rendered. The courts order is not reviewable by any court of this state.

(5) When a petitioner who is imprisoned in a Department of Corrections institution is transferred to another Department of Corrections institution, the circuit court in which a post-conviction relief proceeding is pending may deny a motion for a change of venue to the county where the petitioner is transferred. The courts order is not reviewable by any court of this state. [1959 c.636 §6; 1983 c.505 §14; 1987 c.320 §44; 1991 c.249 §17; 1995 c.273 §20; 1995 c.657 §4; 2003 c.261 §1; 2003 c.737 §§65,66; 2005 c.702 §§77,78,79; 2011 c.595 §57; 2015 c.119 §1]

Notes of Decisions

Excep­tion in this sec­tion does not deny post-con­vic­­tion relief to per­sons convicted of misdemeanors and no longer in custody. Morasch v. State, 261 Or 299, 493 P2d 1364 (1972)

Prisoner filing of peti­tion in county where not imprisoned raises venue issue, not jurisdic­tional issue. Phelps v. State of Oregon, 136 Or App 363, 901 P2d 965 (1995)

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.