Court Opinion

ID: 9791132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:06:26.065366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:34.347651
License: Public Domain

PERRY, C. J.,
dissenting.
The majority seems to place a strange interpretation upon OES 168.015.
It must be remembered that the laws of this state for increasing penalties because of prior felonious convictions were first enacted in 1927. Oregon Laws, *6431927, ch 334, § 1, p 432; § 13-2801, Oregon Code 1930; § 26.2801, OCLA. At that time there was contained in the Act no definition of the. word “conviction.” Thus the only requirement placed upon the State was to prove by the records of a court of competent jurisdiction the particular defendant’s former conviction of a felony. State v. Smith, 128 Or 515, 273 P 323 (1929).
In 1927, many of the constitutional rights of defendants had not been discovered and, therefore, infringement of federal constitutional rights had not been imposed upon the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
In 1959, when the legislature passed the Oregon Post Conviction Act, Oregon Laws 1959, ch 636 (ORS 138.510-680), it was enacted to provide a procedure whereby due process imposed upon the states by these newly discovered federal constitutional rights could be had without resort to federal habeas corpus. In many instances, it was doubtful if federal constitutional violations of convictions in other jurisdictions could be attacked successfully in state habeas corpus proceedings. U. S. ex rel Dennis v. Murphy, C.A. N.Y., 1959, 265 F2d 57.
Therefore, by the passage of the Oregon Post Conviction Act in 1959, the legislature evidently intended and provided (as now decided by the majority) a forum wherein, in response to the requirements of due process, one accused of being an habitual criminal could challenge on constitutional grounds his prior convictions upon which his enhanced sentence was based. See “The Oregon Postconviction-Hearing Act,” 39 Or L Rev 337, 345 (1960), authored by Jack Gr. Collins and Carl R. Neil, members of the drafting committee of the Act.
*644In 1959, no change was made in the act of 1927 relative to defining prior convictions which might he considered as a basis for determining a convicted felon’s status as an habitual criminal. However, two years after the passage of the Oregon Post Conviction Act by the legislature, which provided that:
“(1) The failure of petitioner to have sought appellate review of his conviction, or to have raised matters alleged in his petition at his trial, shall not affect the availability of relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680. * * * ORS 138.550(1).
the legislature amended the Habitual Criminal Act by defining the conviction which could be relied upon in law to form a basis for enhancing the penalty. ORS 138.550.
ORS 168.015(1) states:
“ ‘Conviction’ means an adjudication of guilt upon a plea, verdict or finding in a criminal proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, but ‘conviction’ does not include an adjudication which has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set aside or otherwise rendered nugatory” (Emphasis supplied.)
and ORS 168.075 provided that:
“Unless the proof shows the exception of a former conviction under subsection (1) * * * of ORS 168.015, the defendant waives the exception by failure to claim it at the hearing on the allegations of the information.”
Prom the above, it is clear to me that the legislature, after defining “conviction” and providing for waiver if not raised in the recidivist hearings, determined that all defenses to prior convictions in habitual criminal proceedings are to be tried in the court *645wherein the “principal felony” conviction was had. Certainly no one would contend, after Graham v. West Virginia, 224 US 616, 32 S Ct 583, 56 L ed 917, (1912), that the state could rely upon invalid convictions to enhance criminal penalties. This comports with the requirements of federal due process, and a defendant may waive his right to challenge these prior convictions by failure to assert this right in the habitual criminal proceedings in the court wherein the “principal felony” conviction was had. Oyler v. Boles, 368 US 448, 82 S Ct 501, 7 L ed2d 446.
To avoid the effect of OKS 168.015, the majority apparently holds that the statute is unclear and, therefore, the legislative intent was to foreclose the prisoner from his post-conviction challenge only where a record had been made in some prior proceeding that disclosed that the prior conviction had been “set aside,” “expunged,” or “reversed.”
The word “otherwise” is a word of contrast meaning “in a different way or manner; * * * under different circumstances,” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary; “in a different manner; in another way, or in other ways,” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition. The word “nugatory” simply means “invalid, destitute of constraining force or vitality,” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition.
It is, therefore, clear that the legislature by using the word “otherwise” was distinguishing between those acts which a record disclosed had been “expunged,” “reversed,” or “set aside,” and those acts arising in some other different way or manner which voided the prior judgment.
It would be true, as argued in the concurring opinion, that under OKS 168.075 if the habitual criminal’s constitutional rights had been waived by the provisions *646of the statute when such rights were then unknown and undiscovered, it might not be held that that issue was foreclosed by a waiver under the statute insofar as the jurisdiction of federal habeas corpus applied. This same contention, however, would be just as valid in regard to the 1964 New York statute as to yet to be discovered federal constitutional rights, not because the statute itself is unconstitutional, but because of the requirements of federal due process that the state provide a forum in which federal constitutional rights can be resolved.
Also, it is well established there can be no waiver of an unknown right. In the situation envisaged by the concurring opinion, post-conviction proceedings would still lie if the state is to provide a forum for not yet discovered federal constitutional rights.
That is not the situation present in this case. The petitioner was informed against as an habitual criminal, and “thereafter on said information a hearing was held on April 8, 1964, wherein petitioner admitted the truth of all the material allegations of said information of previous convictions on file.” (Emphasis supplied) The petitioner at this time was represented by able counsel, and at this time it was well known that prior unconstitutional convictions could be attacked in recidivist proceedings in both state and federal courts. Graham v. West Virginia, supra.
As stated in Oyler v. Boles, supra, 368 US 448, 454, 7 L ed2d 446, 451:
“Indeed, we may assume that any infirmities in the prior convictions open to collateral attack could have been reached in the recidivist proceedings, either because the state law so permits or due process so requires.” (Emphasis supplied.)
*647At the time of petitioner’s recidivist hearing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 9 L ed2d 799, 93 ALR2d 733, was past history.
In Schildan v. Gladden, 246 Or 326, 424 P2d 240, 241, we stated:
“The deliberate bypass of state procedures is the waiver test directed for federal habeas corpus proceedings by state prisoners. Fay v. Noia, 372 US 391, 83 S Ct 822, 9 L ed2d 837 (1963).”
It is clear, ORS 168.075 permits a collateral attack upon prior convictions, and “[i]n Delaney v. Gladden, 232 Or 306, 308, 374 P2d 746, cert. den., 372 US 945, 83 S Ct 940, 9 L Ed2d 970, in applying ORS 138.550 (2), we held that the post-conviction act was not intended to provide a second appeal and that ‘ “no procedural principle is more familiar to this Court than that a constitutional right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” ’, citing Yakus v. United States, 1944, 321 US 414, 444, 64 S Ct 660, 677, 88 L Ed 834, 859.” Benson v. Gladden, 242 Or 132, 139, 407 P2d 634.
Certainly no one can successfully contend that the circuit court at the recidivist hearing did not have jurisdiction to pass upon the infirmities of prior convictions.
Even if it be assumed, because petitioner alleges that he was an indigent without counsel when he pleaded guilty to the two convictions in Oklahoma and one in Missouri, that he could not waive these constitutional rights in his Oregon recidivist trial, nevertheless, he was afforded counsel when he pleaded guilty to two burglaries in the state of Texas.
*648While stating he was appointed counsel in both Texas cases, his petition as to both these convictions states:
“® * * that said attorney did not converse with petitioner or investigate the facts for preparation of petitioner’s defense or advise petitioner as to the meaning of said charge, what' elements comprised the charge or what acts amounted to being guilty thereof or any possible defense thereto or to plead not guilty for the purpose of having a jury trial on the merits; that at the time petitioner plead guilty as aforesaid he was eighteen years old and had completed the fourth grade of school and was a layman and not learned in the law.”
In passing, it is amusing to note that petitioner makes the same allegation of not knowing the meaning of the charge or what elements comprise the charge of burglary even as to his three subsequent burglary convictions.
The allegation that the attorney did not “converse” with him simply means that the attorney did not afford him an opportunity for a “free exchange of views” as to the elements of the crime charged and his possible defenses, as set out subsequently in the paragraph.
None of these allegations charge incompetency of counsel, but raise the sole question of whether petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to a trial by jury. This is not a waiver of the right to counsel or a waiver of pretrial incriminating statements. This is a waiver of a right made in court and -with his counsel present and a matter which must be passed upon by the trial judge before the plea may be accepted.
*649It seems absurd to me that the courts of Oregon should arrogate to themselves the power to re-examine a question of fact previously decided in the courts of a sister state.
In my opinion, even though this court holds that the petitioner’s allegations of lack of counsel in the Missouri and Oklahoma convictions were not waived in the recidivist proceedings, the two Texas convictions were valid and, therefore, the petitioner’s pleading fails to state a cause for post-conviction relief.
The petitioner was convicted in this state of the crime of burglary in a dwelling which provides for imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of not more than 15 years. ORS 164.230.
ORS 168.085, the Habitual Criminal Act, provides:
“(1) Where one former conviction of felony is found by the court, imprisonment for a term not more than twice the longest term otherwise prescribed by statute for the principal felony.
“(2) Where two former convictions of felony are found by the court, imprisonment for a term not more than three times the longest term otherwise prescribed by statute for the principal felony.”
The petitioner was sentenced to the penitentiary for a period of 30 years. The above statute, OES 168.085, authorizes the trial court to fix a sentence insofar as this petitioner is concerned of 45 years in the penitentiary. Therefore, there is no constitutional or statutory invalidity in the sentence pronounced in the original recidivist proceedings.
I had always been of the opinion that the jurisdiction of a court to grant post-conviction relief was limited by ORS 138.530 to:
“(1) * * * (a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction, or *650in 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. (Emphasis supplied)
“(c) Sentence in excess of, or otherwise not in accordance with, the sentence authorized by law for the crime of which petitioner was convicted; or unconstitutionality of such sentence.
“(d) Unconstitutionality of the statute making criminal the acts for which petitioner was convicted.”
I find nothing in the Act which permits the post-conviction court to review the discretion granted the sentencing court by the legislature in fixing the period of imprisonment. State v. Dixon, 238 Or 121, 393 P2d 204; State v. Montgomery, 237 Or 593, 392 P2d 642. Therefore, by today’s decision, the majority acts for the legislature and grants to a court jurisdiction which the legislature has not seen fit to do — a usurpation of power by this court that to me is unconscionable.
Therefore, unless this court is willing to deliberately usurp the legislative function in defiance of the Oregon Constitution, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed, whether or not the majority avoid the clear intent of the legislature expressed in OES 168.015(1) and 168.075.
For the above reasons, I dissent.