Case Title: Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly

Citation: 

Docket Number: S069865

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2023-03-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8	
March 30, 2023	
823
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
STATE OF OREGON
ARTURO GUERRERO-PEREZ,
Petitioner on Review,
v.
Brandon KELLY,  
Superintendent,
Oregon State Penitentiary,
Respondent on Review.
(CC 19CV50887) (CA A175504) (SC S069865)
En Banc
On petition for review filed January 5, 2023;* considered 
and under advisement on February 28, 2023.
Jedediah Peterson, O’Connor Weber LLC, Portland, filed 
the petition for petitioner on review.
No appearance contra.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner’s petition for review is allowed. The decision of 
the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded to the 
circuit court for further proceedings.
______________
	
*  Appeal from Marion County Circuit Court, Patricia A. Sullivan, Senior 
Judge. 322 Or App 383, 518 P3d 155 (2022).
824	
Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly
Cite as 370 Or 823 (2023)	
825
	
PER CURIAM
	
Petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals’ 
decision, Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly, 322 Or App 383, 518 P3d 
155 (2022), which affirmed the circuit court’s denial of his 
petition for post-conviction relief. Among other claims, peti-
tioner asserts that, in the underlying criminal case, his 
right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment to the 
United States Constitution was violated when, on each of the 
charges against him, he was convicted based on nonunani-
mous jury verdicts. Petitioner bases his argument on Ramos 
v. Louisiana, in which the United States Supreme Court 
held that the Sixth Amendment prohibits convictions based 
on nonunanimous jury verdicts. ___ US ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 
206 L Ed 2d 583 (2020).
	
We held petitioner’s petition for review in abeyance 
pending decisions in Huggett v. Kelly, 370 Or 645, 523 P3d 84 
(2022), and Jones v. Brown, 370 Or 649, 523 P3d 82 (2022). 
In those cases, the state argued that Ramos did not apply 
retroactively; in other words, the state argued that persons 
whose convictions were final before Ramos issued could not 
obtain post-conviction relief based on Ramos. This court 
rejected that argument in Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 523 
P3d 604 (2022), which was decided the same day as Huggett 
and Jones. In Watkins, this court held that, when a petitioner 
establishes that their conviction was based on a nonunani-
mous jury verdict, the petitioner is entitled to post-conviction 
relief (at least in cases like Watkins, Huggett, Jones, and this 
one, where the state has not raised, much less proven, any 
of the procedural defenses in the Post-Conviction Hearings 
Act). 370 Or at 633; see also Huggett, 370 Or at 648 (following 
Watkins); Jones, 370 Or at 651 (same).
	
Because the parties’ arguments regarding petition-
er’s Ramos claim in this case are the same as in Watkins, 
we hold that petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief on 
each of his convictions. Given that holding, petitioner’s other 
claims for post-conviction relief are moot. See Huggett, 370 
Or at 648 n 3 (so holding regarding the petitioner’s claims 
that his counsel provided constitutionally inadequate repre-
sentation in connection with convictions based on nonunan-
imous verdicts).
826	
Guerrero-Perez v. Kelly
	
Petitioner’s petition for review is allowed. The deci-
sion of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case is remanded 
to the circuit court for further proceedings.