Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525 (2026)

Dismissal of meritless petition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      138.525 Dismissal of meritless petition. (1) The court may, on its own motion or on the motion of the defendant, enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 138.510 to 138.680.

      (2) As used in this section, “meritless petition” means one that, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which post-conviction relief may be granted.

      (3) Notwithstanding ORS 138.650, a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable.

      (4) A dismissal is without prejudice if a meritless petition is dismissed without a hearing and the petitioner was not represented by counsel. [1993 c.517 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009). · cites it 17× “This post-conviction case requires us to determine whether ORS 138.525, which governs meritless petitions for post-conviction relief, requires petitioner’s appeal to be dismissed.”
Ware v. Hall, 154 P.3d 118 (Or. 2007). · cites it 17× “550(3); rather, he argues that a later-enacted statute, ORS 138.525, created an exception to that requirement and authorized the trial court to dismiss the petition without providing petitioner any opportunity to be heard.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014). · cites it 9× “If the petition states a ground for relief — that is, if it is not subject to dismissal as a meritless petition under ORS 138.525 — the court holds a hearing. ORS 138.”
Dillard v. Premo, 366 P.3d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “525(4) in the context of determining whether ORS 138.525 authorized a post-conviction court to depart from the procedures in ORS 138.”
Hayward v. Premo, 383 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “That argument is predicated on ORS 138.525, which provides that “a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 453 P.3d 1274 (Or. 2019). · cites it 4× “Another post-conviction statute, ORS 138.525, pro- vides that a post-conviction court may enter a judgment dis- missing a “meritless petition” and that a “meritless petition” is “one that, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which post-conviction relief may be…”
Breece v. Amsberry, 381 P.3d 1086 (Umatilla Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to ORS 138.525, “(1) The court may, on its own motion or on the motion of the defendant, enter a judgment denying a meritless petition brought under ORS 138.”
Pedroso v. Nooth, 284 P.3d 1207 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “Hill, 347 Or 165, 173 , 218 P3d 125 (2009) (ORS 138.525 “is unambiguous: petitions that fail to state a claim are meritless, and a judgment dismissing a petition as meritless is not appealable.”
Dillard v. Premo, 441 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “Dillard II reversed our decision, holding that " ORS 138.525 does not bar appeal of a judgment entered without the benefit of counsel or a hearing, unless the judgment is entered in accordance with * * * [ ORS 138.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 298 P.3d 32 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “If the petition states a ground for relief — that is, if it is not subject to dismissal as a meritless petition under ORS 138.525— the court holds a hearing. ORS 138.”
McDonnell v. Premo, 483 P.3d 640 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “But the claim was a duplicate of other allegations that the post-conviction court addressed on the merits, so the error in dismissing it on the basis of Palmer is harmless.”
Corona v. Amsberry, 393 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 20× “” • “The Petition liberally construed fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and may be dismissed under ORS 138.525.” *416 • “The Petition fails to meet the requirements of ORS 138.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525(1) — 5 cases
Ware v. Hall, 154 P.3d 118 (Or. 2007). “550(3); rather, he argues that a later-enacted statute, ORS 138.525, created an exception to that requirement and authorized the trial court to dismiss the petition without providing petitioner any opportunity to be heard.”
Corona v. Amsberry, 393 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” • “The Petition liberally construed fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and may be dismissed under ORS 138.525.” *416 • “The Petition fails to meet the requirements of ORS 138.”
Perkins v. Fhuere, 374 Or. 575 (Or. 2025).
Perkins v. Fhuere, 374 Or. 575 (Or. 2025).
Law v. Highberger, 348 Or. App. 215 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525(2) — 16 cases
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009). “This post-conviction case requires us to determine whether ORS 138.525, which governs meritless petitions for post-conviction relief, requires petitioner’s appeal to be dismissed.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014). “If the petition states a ground for relief — that is, if it is not subject to dismissal as a meritless petition under ORS 138.525 — the court holds a hearing. ORS 138.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 453 P.3d 1274 (Or. 2019). “Another post-conviction statute, ORS 138.525, pro- vides that a post-conviction court may enter a judgment dis- missing a “meritless petition” and that a “meritless petition” is “one that, when liberally construed, fails to state a claim upon which post-conviction relief may be…”
Hayward v. Premo, 383 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “That argument is predicated on ORS 138.525, which provides that “a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable.”
Pedroso v. Nooth, 284 P.3d 1207 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Hill, 347 Or 165, 173 , 218 P3d 125 (2009) (ORS 138.525 “is unambiguous: petitions that fail to state a claim are meritless, and a judgment dismissing a petition as meritless is not appealable.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525(3) — 20 cases
Young v. Hill, 218 P.3d 125 (Or. 2009). “This post-conviction case requires us to determine whether ORS 138.525, which governs meritless petitions for post-conviction relief, requires petitioner’s appeal to be dismissed.”
Dillard v. Premo, 366 P.3d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “525(4) in the context of determining whether ORS 138.525 authorized a post-conviction court to depart from the procedures in ORS 138.”
Pedroso v. Nooth, 284 P.3d 1207 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Hill, 347 Or 165, 173 , 218 P3d 125 (2009) (ORS 138.525 “is unambiguous: petitions that fail to state a claim are meritless, and a judgment dismissing a petition as meritless is not appealable.”
Hayward v. Premo, 383 P.3d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “That argument is predicated on ORS 138.525, which provides that “a judgment dismissing a meritless petition is not appealable.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 298 P.3d 32 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “If the petition states a ground for relief — that is, if it is not subject to dismissal as a meritless petition under ORS 138.525— the court holds a hearing. ORS 138.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.525(4) — 7 cases
Ware v. Hall, 154 P.3d 118 (Or. 2007). “550(3); rather, he argues that a later-enacted statute, ORS 138.525, created an exception to that requirement and authorized the trial court to dismiss the petition without providing petitioner any opportunity to be heard.”
Dillard v. Premo, 366 P.3d 797 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “525(4) in the context of determining whether ORS 138.525 authorized a post-conviction court to depart from the procedures in ORS 138.”
Dillard v. Premo, 441 P.3d 609 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “Dillard II reversed our decision, holding that " ORS 138.525 does not bar appeal of a judgment entered without the benefit of counsel or a hearing, unless the judgment is entered in accordance with * * * [ ORS 138.”
Dillard v. Premo (Or. 2017).
Dillard v. Premo (Or. 2017).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.