243 P.3d 786
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Stahlman was convicted in 1995 of first-degree robbery and in December 1995 of first-degree kidnapping, with a determinate sentence under ORS 137.635 based on the robbery conviction.
- Stahlman timely appealed the kidnapping conviction; the appellate judgment was entered in December 1996 and affirmed in 1996.
- In 2008, Stahlman filed a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for not challenging the use of the robbery conviction to support the determinate sentence, relying on Allison (1996).
- A post-conviction court ordered Stahlman to show cause why the action wasn’t untimely; Stahlman argued he was in federal custody (2005) with no access to Oregon law until December 2007.
- The court dismissed the petition as untimely under ORS 138.510(3); the court rejected the escape-clause argument, concluding information was reasonably available during the two-year period.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the materials were reasonably available and the escape clause did not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition is timely under ORS 138.510(3) escape clause | Stahlman cannot timely file due to lack of access. | Escape clause requires information was unavailable; timely otherwise. | Escape clause not available; petition untimely. |
| Whether information needed to assert Allison-based claim was reasonably available | Materials not reasonably available due to federal custody. | Materials were reasonably available; petitioner could obtain them. | Information reasonably available; escape clause not satisfied. |
| Whether petitioning period accrues from finality of underlying convictions | Two-year clock delayed because of prison access issues. | Two-year clock runs from finality regardless of access issues. | Two-year clock runs from finality; petition untimely. |
| Whether reliance on counsel’s advice or access barriers affect Bartz analysis | Bartz supports escape clause due to unavailable information. | Bartz requires information to be unavailable; here it was available. | Bartz analysis controls; information was available, escape clause inapplicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bartz v. State of Oregon, 314 Or. 353 (1992) (escape clause narrowly construed to information not existed or not reasonably available)
- Keerins v. Schiedler, 132 Or. App. 560 (1995) (escape clause applies where information could not be reasonably obtained)
- Brown v. Baldwin, 131 Or. App. 356 (1994) (information published and reasonably available; reliance on attorney advice irrelevant to escape clause)
- State v. Allison, 143 Or. App. 241 (1996) (determines when a prior conviction is not a qualifying prior conviction for determinate sentencing)