Pedroso v. Nooth
251 Or. App. 688
| Or. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Petitioner convicted of murder; defense of extreme emotional disturbance (EED) rejected by jury.
- Post-conviction relief petition alleged multiple deficiencies by trial counsel, including failure to consult, arrange a psychologist, obtain discovery, and properly present EED.
- State moved to dismiss under ORCP 21 A(8) and ORS 138.580/138.525 for failure to state a claim and lack of attached evidentiary support.
- Trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding no prejudice or impact on trial outcome from alleged deficiencies.
- Post-conviction court and appellate briefing debated whether the petition, viewed with attached affidavits and exhibits, stated a prima facie claim for relief; the court labeled the petition meritless.
- Court ultimately held the post-conviction court’s dismissal is not appealable under ORS 138.525(3) and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the dismissal for failure to state a claim appealable? | Petitioner argues the court erred in dismissing allegations that, viewed with attachments, stated claims for relief. | State contends dismissal was proper as meritless under ORS 138.525(2)-(3). | Not appealable; dismissal for failure to state a claim is not subject to review. |
| Whether the petition, with attachments, stated prima facie claims for relief. | Petitioner maintains allegations, when construed in his favor with affidavits, show potential ineffective assistance and prejudice. | State asserts no viable error/prejudice shown; no prejudice shown by alleged deficiencies. | Petition failed to allege plausible claims that would require relief; no prejudice shown. |
| Whether the affidavit cured any pleading defects. | Affidavit tracks petition allegations and supports a prima facie case. | Affidavit does not supply material facts showing prejudice or error affecting trial outcome. | Affidavit did not create a viable claim; dismissal stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. Hill, 347 Or 165 (Or. 2009) (meritless petition not appealable; ORS 138.525(3) mandate)
- Mueller v. Benning, 314 Or 615 (Or. 1992) (civil procedure standards apply to post-conviction petitions absent statute)
- Humphrey v. Coleman, 86 Or App 511 (Or. App. 1987) (motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; demurrer-style review)
- Handam v. Wilsonville Holiday Partners, LLC, 221 Or App 493 (Or. App. 2008) (reviewing evidence and pleadings in post-judgment context)