Court Opinion

ID: 9568887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:08:21.596791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:12:20.524556
License: Public Domain

*233PERRY, C. J.,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that the post-conviction act (ORS 138.510 to 138.680) authorizes this court to direct the trial court, acting pursuant to that act, to direct that petitioner in effect be granted a delayed appeal.
It may well be that petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel on appeal and his constitutional rights denied him, but this alone does not permit the trial court or any court to grant relief under the post-conviction act.
ORS 138.530(a) provides for relief only in the following specific instances:
“(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction, or in the appellate review thereof, of petitioner’s rights Tinder the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.”
Only a glance at this section discloses that this act pertains solely to a substantial denial of a petitioner’s state or federal constitutional rights, occurring either in the trial of the cause in the trial court or in this court, which would render the conviction void. No other jurisdiction is granted.
Such an issue is not presented on this appeal, the sole issue being whether petitioner’s appointed counsel could waive his client’s right to appeal. Thus the failure of counsel would not render his conviction void, nor can it be considered a constitutional error made by this court.
If this petitioner is to be granted relief from his counsel’s waiver of his right to appeal, the proper *234procedure is an application for a writ of habeas corpus addressed to this court. ORS 138.530 (3) provides:
“(3) ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall not be construed to limit the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus as provided in the Constitution of this state.”
ORS 138.540 (2) also shows the clear intent of the legislature that habeas . corpus is the only remedy available under the circumstances alleged in petitioner’s complaint, for it states:
“(2) When a person restrained by virtue of a judgment upon a conviction or crime asserts the illegality of his restraint upon grounds other than the unlawfulness of such judgment or the proceedings upon which it is based or in the appellate review thereof, relief shall not be available under ORS 138.510 to 138.680 but shall be sought by habeas corpus or other remedies, if any, as otherwise provided by law. As used in this subsection, such other grounds include but are not limited to unlawful revocation of parole or conditional pardon or completed service of the sentence imposed.”
Since I am of the opinion that the circuit court sitting in this post-conviction hearing was without jurisdiction to render the judgment which it did, I would reverse the judgment with instructions to dismiss.