Allen v. Premo, 251 Or. App. 682

Petitioner was convicted of multiple crimes including first-degree robbery and burglary and challenged post-conviction relief.
At the first post-conviction trial, the court denied relief and petitioner appealed; Allen I remanded for a new post-conviction trial due to exclusion of testimony.
Allen I stated the case should be remanded for a new trial, effectively returning to a pretrial posture with potential to testify.
On remand, petitioner sought to file a fourth amended petition to add or federalize claims; the state argued it would be a successive petition and time-barred.
The post-conviction court denied leave to file the fourth amended petition, treating it as a barred, new-petition scenario with limited remand scope.
On appeal, the court reversed, holding the remand allowed the court discretion to grant or deny leave to amend and remanded for a new post-conviction trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in concluding it had no discretion to allow a fourth amended petition	Allen I remand authorized reconsideration with amendment	Remand limited to testimony; fourth amendment would be a new or successive petition	Court erred; discretion exists to permit amendment on remand

Allen v. Palmateer, 182 P.3d 255 (Or. App. 2008) (remand for new post-conviction trial due to exclusion of testimony)
Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 68 P.3d 259 (Or. App. 2003) (remand specificity; not controlling for this case)
Cowan v. Nordyke, 222 P.3d 1093 (Or. App. 2009) (standard for reviewing post-conviction discretionary rulings)
Mueller v. Benning, 841 P.2d 640 (Or. 1992) (post-conviction procedural standards)
Miller v. Lampert, 125 P.3d 1260 (Or. 2006) (addressing limits on judicial factfinding in post-conviction)