Opinion ID: 578017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intelligent and Voluntary

Text: 3 Paginton contends his no contest plea was unconstitutional because the trial judge accepted the plea without an affirmative showing that the plea was intelligent and voluntary. Specifically, Paginton argues that the court failed to comply with the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242-44 (1969), which are codified in Oregon. See Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 135.385 and 135.390. 4 A state prisoner must exhaust his available remedies in state court before bringing a habeas corpus petition in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c). In Oregon, any person convicted of a crime under the laws of the state may file a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Or.Rev.Stat. §§ 138.510-138.680. The exhaustion requirement is excused only if there is no presently available state court remedy or process by which the prisoner can raise his claims. 5 The claim that Paginton's plea was not voluntary and intelligent was not an independent ground for relief alleged in the petition and it was never exhausted. As Paginton's lawyer points out in the Objection to Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation the validity of the no contest plea is relevant to this petition for establishing that Paginton was prejudiced by trial counsel's deficient representation. Consequently, we will evaluate the contention that the plea was not voluntary and intelligent only to determine whether Paginton was denied effective assistance of counsel.