Court Opinion

ID: 9945846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 17:11:01.801044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:16.101580
License: Public Domain

No. 141             February 28, 2024                 225

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
                  STATE OF OREGON

             TERRY MICHAEL MARTIN,
                  Petitioner-Appellant,
                            v.
                 STATE OF OREGON,
                Defendant-Respondent.
            Multnomah County Circuit Court
                 21CV14306; A176475

  Eric L. Dahlin, Judge.
  Argued and submitted February 2, 2024.
   Andy Simrin argued the cause for appellant. Also on the
brief was Andy Simrin PC.
   Rebecca M. Auten, Assistant Attorney General, argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
  Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and
Pagán, Judge.
  SHORR, P. J.
  Reversed and remanded.
226                                            Martin v. State of Oregon

         SHORR, P. J.
         Petitioner Terry Michael Martin appeals from the
judgment entered in favor of defendant State of Oregon after
the post-conviction court granted the state’s motion for sum-
mary judgment. Petitioner assigns error to the court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of the state and its denial of
petitioner’s cross-motion for summary judgment.1 The state
concedes that the post-conviction court erred. Based on case
law decided since the post-conviction court ruled, we agree
that the court erred. As a result, we reverse and remand.
         We state only those facts necessary to understand
this opinion. The facts are procedural and undisputed. In
1991, a jury found petitioner guilty of various second-degree
sexual abuse and kidnapping charges by nonunanimous
verdicts. The trial court merged the verdicts on some of
those counts and entered a judgment of conviction on the
remaining counts. Subsequently, in Ramos v. Louisiana,
590 US ___, ___, 140 S Ct 1390, 1394-97, 206 L Ed 2d 583
(2020), the United States Supreme Court held that the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, applied to
the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a
unanimous verdict for the conviction of a “serious offense.”2
After Ramos was decided, petitioner filed a petition for post-
conviction relief under ORS 138.530,3 alleging a substantial
     1
       As a general rule subject to certain exceptions, we do not review the denial
of a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., Freeman v. Stuart, 203 Or App 191,
194, 125 P3d 786 (2005) (denial of summary judgment generally not reviewable
where the matter has gone to trial unless the motion raises a purely legal conten-
tion). However, in an appeal arising from cross-motions for summary judgment, the
granting of one motion and the denial of the other are both reviewable. Eden Gate,
Inc. v. D&L Excavating & Trucking, Inc., 178 Or App 610, 622, 37 P3d 233 (2002).
     2
       The Sixth Amendment provides, among other things, that “[i]n all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an
impartial jury of the State.”
     3
       ORS 138.530(1) provides, in part:
         “Post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall be
     granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established
     by the petitioner:
         “(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s con-
     viction, or in the appellate review thereof, of petitioner’s rights under the
     Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of
     Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.
         “(b) Lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the judgment rendered
     upon petitioner’s conviction.”
Cite as 331 Or App 225 (2024)                             227

denial of his rights because he had been denied his right to a
unanimous jury as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments. It was undisputed in the post-conviction court
and before us that petitioner had been convicted of “serious
offenses.”
         The parties each filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. The state contended that the rule announced
in Ramos did not apply retroactively under either federal
law or the Oregon Post-Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA).
Petitioner conceded that, under the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Edwards v. Vannoy, 593 US ___, 141 S Ct
1547, 209 L Ed 2d 651 (2021), Ramos did not apply retro-
actively on federal collateral review. However, petitioner
noted that Edwards left it to the states to decide whether
the rule applied retroactively under state post-conviction
law. See Edwards, 593 US at ___ n 6, 141 S Ct at 1559 n 6
(“States remain free, if they choose, to retroactively apply
the jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law in state
post-conviction proceedings.”). Petitioner then argued that
Ramos should apply retroactively under the PCHA.
         At the time that the parties filed their cross-motions
for summary judgment, it remained an open issue whether
Ramos applied retroactively under the PCHA. The post-
conviction court concluded that it did not. After the post-
conviction court ruled, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded
that Ramos applied retroactively under the PCHA such
that a person who was previously convicted by a nonunan-
imous jury is entitled to post-conviction relief under ORS
138.530(1)(a) unless one of the other defenses in the PCHA
applies. Watkins v. Ackley, 370 Or 604, 631-33, 523 P3d 86
(2022). As a result, the post-conviction court, although act-
ing without the benefit of the Oregon Supreme Court’s deci-
sion in Watkins, was incorrect. See State v. Jury, 185 Or App
132, 136-37, 57 P3d 970 (2002), rev den, 335 Or 504 (2003)
(stating that, on appeal, we apply the current law and not
the law in effect at the time that the trial court ruled). The
state concedes error, agrees that the post-conviction court
should have denied its summary judgment motion and
granted petitioner’s motion, and further agrees that, under
228                                        Martin v. State of Oregon

Watkins, petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief.4 We
accept the state’s concession of error.
         The only dispute between the parties relates to the
appropriate remedy following our remand of this case to the
post-conviction court. Petitioner contends that we must now
direct the post-conviction court to dismiss the indictment
and the original criminal case against petitioner. The state
contends that the appropriate remedy here is a retrial. At
oral argument, the parties asked that we resolve this issue
now because it is likely to arise on remand. State v. Zielinski,
321 Or App 8, 15, 515 P3d 397, rev den, 370 Or 694 (2022)
(stating that we can resolve issues of law likely to arise on
remand when we determine that it is appropriate to do so).
        Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to a rem-
edy of dismissal of the indictment is based on a couple of
passages from Watkins. First, petitioner relies on the court’s
statement that
   “certain constitutional errors in criminal proceedings are
   of such magnitude that they should be viewed as, in effect,
   stripping a court of its jurisdiction to enter judgment on a
   conviction, thus rendering the conviction ‘void.’ ”
Watkins, 370 Or at 625. Second, petitioner notes that the
court, quoting Brooks v. Gladden, 226 Or 191, 195, 358 P2d
1055 (1961), stated that Oregon’s Post-Conviction Hearing
Act is available “ ‘to afford relief where the trial court had
jurisdiction initially but lost it by departing from due process
of law.’ ” Watkins, 370 Or at 626. Taken together, petitioner
contends that the original criminal trial court “stripped
itself of jurisdiction” at the time it accepted nonunanimous
verdicts and could only dismiss the case at that point.
         We reject petitioner’s argument and his interpreta-
tion of Watkins. First, Watkins does not state or even suggest
that courts that commit constitutional error in the original
criminal proceeding forever lose jurisdiction of the case or
are otherwise precluded from proceeding with a retrial of
the defendant that is free of constitutional error. It states
that certain constitutional errors “in effect” may result in a
    4
      The state does not assert that it raised any other PCHA defenses to the
post-conviction petition.
Cite as 331 Or App 225 (2024)                                               229

court losing jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction in
the original proceeding. Id. at 625 (emphasis added).
          Second, even that more limited meaning was cab-
ined by the later express statement in Watkins that, when
“the cited cases speak of a conviction being rendered ‘void’
by the trial court’s loss of jurisdiction * * * they do not mean
that * * * the conviction immediately becomes a nullity and
the convicted person can proceed as if it never had occurred.”
Id. at 625 n 16.
         Third, and finally, Watkins interpreted ORS
138.530(1)(a), which addresses post-conviction relief for con-
stitutional errors in the proceedings, in the context of ORS
138.530(1)(b), which provides post-conviction relief when the
criminal court lacks jurisdiction to impose a judgment of
conviction. Id. at 623-24. Paragraph (1)(b) derives from fed-
eral common law, wherein lack of jurisdiction was originally
the sole basis for habeas corpus relief. Id. at 625. Accordingly,
Watkins explained post-conviction relief for constitutional
errors in the proceedings—ORS 138.530(1)(a)—by using the
term “jurisdiction” in the context that the term had been
historically used in the common law of habeas corpus.5 The
passages that petitioner cites as support for his argument
that the trial court “stripped itself of jurisdiction” by enter-
ing an unconstitutional verdict were merely explaining that
history. Indeed, Watkins used quotation marks on occasion
when discussing the ideas of a “void” judgment and a court
losing “jurisdiction” to enter a criminal judgment in the con-
text of a claim for constitutional error. See, e.g., 370 Or at
625 (interpreting the term “ ‘rendered the judgment void’ ” in
the context of “its historical use in habeas cases to signify a
certain kind or quality of procedural error that causes the
trial court to lose ‘jurisdiction.’ ”). The selective use of quo-
tation marks around those particular terms signifies the
somewhat unusual use of those terms in that context.
         In sum, we see nothing in Watkins that supports
petitioner’s contention that the courts forever lost jurisdiction

     5
       Petitioner generally alleged a claim under ORS 138.530. However, he alleged
that his rights were violated in his criminal trial because he was denied his con-
stitutional right to a unanimous jury, which is a claim under ORS 138.530(1)(a).
That is the claim that was resolved on summary judgment and is before us.
230                               Martin v. State of Oregon

over his criminal case when the original trial court errone-
ously accepted nonunanimous verdicts and entered a crim-
inal judgment against him. We reject petitioner’s argument
under Watkins that the post-conviction court must provide
petitioner with the remedy of dismissal of the indictment.
See also State v. Clyde, 328 Or App 222, 227, 537 P3d 170
(2023), rev den, 371 Or 825 (2024) (concluding that defendant
was entitled to a retrial and not to a dismissal of his case
on double jeopardy grounds after his original convictions
based on nonunanimous verdicts were reversed). However,
as discussed above, we accept the state’s concession that the
post-conviction court erred in granting the state’s motion for
summary judgment and denying petitioner’s cross-motion
for summary judgment. We reverse and remand for the
post-conviction court to enter a judgment consistent with
this opinion.
        Reversed and remanded.