State v. Keys, 489 P.3d 83

Defendant Clifford Keys was charged by information with possession of methamphetamine; counsel (appointed at arraignment) waived a preliminary hearing moments after meeting Keys.
Defendant later moved to suppress evidence; trial court denied the motion and convicted Keys after a stipulated-facts trial.
On appeal Keys argued his waiver was not "knowing" under Or. Const. Art. VII (Amended) §5(5), and that an invalid waiver deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction; he did not raise the waiver objection in the trial court.
The Oregon Court of Appeals, relying on Huffman v. Alexander, held a defective waiver deprived the trial court of the kind of jurisdiction that can be raised for the first time on appeal and reversed Keys’s conviction.
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a defective waiver of a preliminary hearing is a subject matter jurisdictional defect and whether Keys could raise it on appeal without preservation.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals: held Huffman was limited to habeas-context authority and that a defective waiver does not deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction; preservation rules therefore apply.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Keys)	Held
Whether a defective waiver of a preliminary hearing deprives a circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction	A defective waiver is not a subject matter jurisdictional defect; preservation rules apply	An invalid (non-knowing) waiver renders the conviction void for lack of jurisdiction and can be raised for the first time on appeal (relying on Huffman)	Reversed Court of Appeals; defective waiver does not deprive subject matter jurisdiction; Huffman limited to habeas/authority-to-act context
Whether Keys may raise the invalid-waiver claim despite failing to preserve it (plain error or unique-right exception)	Preservation required; no special exception here	Waiver was not knowing—either plain error or a unique constitutional right that need not be preserved	Preservation rules govern; Barber-type unique-right exception not satisfied; plain-error review is discretionary—remand to Court of Appeals to decide whether to exercise discretion

Huffman v. Alexander, 197 Or 283 (1952) (held defective waiver of indictment was cognizable in state habeas; Court here reads Huffman as limited to habeas/authority-to-act, not subject matter jurisdiction)
State v. Keys, 302 Or App 514 (2020) (Court of Appeals treated defective waiver as jurisdictional and reversed conviction)
State v. Terry, 333 Or 163 (2001) (defective accusatory instrument does not deprive circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction)
Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) (federal authority relied on in Huffman; held an amended indictment could be treated as "no indictment" and be cognizable on habeas)
Dept. of Human Services v. C. M. H., 368 Or 96 (2021) (distinguishes subject matter jurisdiction from other historical uses of "jurisdiction")