Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530 (2026)

When relief must be granted; executive clemency or pardon powers and original jurisdiction of Supreme Court in habeas corpus not affected

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

138.530 When relief must be granted; executive clemency or pardon powers and original jurisdiction of Supreme Court in habeas corpus not affected. (1) Post-conviction relief pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner:

(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner’s conviction, or in the appellate review thereof, of petitioner’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of the State of Oregon, or both, and which denial rendered the conviction void.

(b) Lack of jurisdiction of the court to impose the judgment rendered upon petitioner’s conviction.

(c) Sentence in excess of, or otherwise not in accordance with, the sentence authorized by law for the crime of which petitioner was convicted; or unconstitutionality of such sentence.

(d) Unconstitutionality of the statute making criminal the acts for which petitioner was convicted.

(2) Whenever a person petitions for relief under ORS 138.510 to 138.680, ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall not be construed to deny relief where such relief would have been available prior to May 26, 1959, under the writ of habeas corpus, nor shall it be construed to affect any powers of executive clemency or pardon provided by law.

(3) ORS 138.510 to 138.680 shall not be construed to limit the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus as provided in the Constitution of this state. [1959 c.636 §§3,5]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 292 cases (97 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022). · cites it 37× “530(1)(a) in similar terms: “The scope of subsection (1)(a), ORS 138.530 can best be described in relation to subsection (1)(b).”

Teague v. Palmateer, 57 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 14× “3d at 193-201 , under Long, petitioner's Apprendi -based claims are cognizable under ORS 138.530(1). II. EVEN IF TEAGUE v. LANE WERE APPLICABLE, APPRENDI ANNOUNCES A "WATERSHED" RULE THAT IS SUBJECT TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS As noted, 184 Or.”

Bartz v. State of Oregon, 839 P.2d 217 (Or. 1992). · cites it 15× “It sets out the substantive grounds for relief, ORS 138.530, among them a “substantial denial” of a petitioner’s constitutional rights in the proceedings resulting in the conviction, so as to render that conviction void.”

Palmer v. State of Oregon, 854 P.2d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 19× “" Grounds for post-conviction relief are enumerated in ORS 138.530, which provides: "(1) Post-conviction relief pursuant to [the Post-Conviction Hearing Act] shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: "(a) A…”

Blain v. Cain, 536 P.3d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Cupp, 6 Or App 289, 291 , 487 P2d 674 , rev den (1971) (a post-conviction proceeding “is not the equivalent of a direct appeal”; relief is available in a post-conviction proceeding only for the types of error enu- merated in ORS 138.530). Cite as 327 Or App 584 (2023) 589 In…”

Reeves v. Nooth, 432 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “680 shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: "(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner's conviction, or in the appellate review thereof, of petitioner's rights under the Constitution of…”

Walton v. Thompson, 102 P.3d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 11× “Thus, we indicated in Pettibone that (1) the references to “ground” in ORS 138.530 and ORS 138.550 mean the same thing, and (2) because one “ground” for post-conviction relief is a violation of a petitioner’s constitutional rights, a constitutional ground that could not…”

Goodwin v. State of Oregon, 840 P.2d 1372 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “ORS 138.530. [4] In State v. Witt, 33 Or.”

Stevens v. Bispham, 851 P.2d 556 (Or. 1993). · cites it 4× “OTHER ANALYTICAL FLAWS EXIST IN THE MAJORITY'S REASONING The majority argues that a claim for legal malpractice arising out of a lawyer's defense of a client in a criminal case must be treated specially because of the existence of post-conviction relief, but fails to acknowledge…”

Palmer v. State of Oregon, 867 P.2d 1368 (Or. 1994). · cites it 5× “6 ORS 138.530(1) provides in full: “Post-conviction relief pursuant to [the Post-Conviction Hearing Act] shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: “(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in…”

Decker v. Sundquist, 350 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 27× “3 Having determined that the post-conviction court erred, the next question is the proper disposition, in light of such an error.”

Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Second, Smith argues that Oregon's post-conviction process was ineffective because the post-conviction trial court denied his second petition by holding that it could not allow relief based on newly-discovered evidence of actual innocence under Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.530(1) (2005).…”

Show all 292 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(1) — 56 cases

Smith v. Baldwin, 510 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2007). “Second, Smith argues that Oregon's post-conviction process was ineffective because the post-conviction trial court denied his second petition by holding that it could not allow relief based on newly-discovered evidence of actual innocence under Or.Rev.Stat. § 138.530(1) (2005).…”

Gutale v. State, 435 P.3d 728 (Or. 2019).

Strasser v. State of Oregon, 489 P.3d 1025 (Or. 2021).

Datt v. Hill, 227 P.3d 714 (Or. 2010).

Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022). “530(1)(a) in similar terms: “The scope of subsection (1)(a), ORS 138.530 can best be described in relation to subsection (1)(b).”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(1)(a) — 144 cases

Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022). “530(1)(a) in similar terms: “The scope of subsection (1)(a), ORS 138.530 can best be described in relation to subsection (1)(b).”

Teague v. Palmateer, 57 P.3d 176 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “3d at 193-201 , under Long, petitioner's Apprendi -based claims are cognizable under ORS 138.530(1). II. EVEN IF TEAGUE v. LANE WERE APPLICABLE, APPRENDI ANNOUNCES A "WATERSHED" RULE THAT IS SUBJECT TO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION IN COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS As noted, 184 Or.”

Blain v. Cain, 536 P.3d 623 (Or. Ct. App. 2023). “Cupp, 6 Or App 289, 291 , 487 P2d 674 , rev den (1971) (a post-conviction proceeding “is not the equivalent of a direct appeal”; relief is available in a post-conviction proceeding only for the types of error enu- merated in ORS 138.530). Cite as 327 Or App 584 (2023) 589 In…”

Reeves v. Nooth, 432 P.3d 1105 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “680 shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: "(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in petitioner's conviction, or in the appellate review thereof, of petitioner's rights under the Constitution of…”

Chew v. State, 855 P.2d 1120 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(1)(b) — 8 cases

Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022). “530(1)(a) in similar terms: “The scope of subsection (1)(a), ORS 138.530 can best be described in relation to subsection (1)(b).”

Velasco v. State, 426 P.3d 114 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

Decker v. Sundquist, 350 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “3 Having determined that the post-conviction court erred, the next question is the proper disposition, in light of such an error.”

Franklin v. State, 819 P.2d 739 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Martin v. State of Oregon, 545 P.3d 776 (Or. Ct. App. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(1)(c) — 17 cases

Blackledge v. Morrow, 26 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

State v. Fisher, 574 P.2d 354 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Palmer v. State of Oregon, 854 P.2d 955 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “" Grounds for post-conviction relief are enumerated in ORS 138.530, which provides: "(1) Post-conviction relief pursuant to [the Post-Conviction Hearing Act] shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: "(a) A…”

Thompson v. Fhuere, 545 P.3d 1233 (Or. 2024).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(1)(d) — 5 cases

Decker v. Sundquist, 350 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2026). “3 Having determined that the post-conviction court erred, the next question is the proper disposition, in light of such an error.”

Goodwin v. State, 866 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

Decker v. Sundquist, 350 Or. App. 620 (Or. Ct. App. 2026).

State v. Reed, 608 P.2d 175 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(2) — 9 cases

Bartz v. State of Oregon, 839 P.2d 217 (Or. 1992). “It sets out the substantive grounds for relief, ORS 138.530, among them a “substantial denial” of a petitioner’s constitutional rights in the proceedings resulting in the conviction, so as to render that conviction void.”

Bartz v. State of Oregon, 825 P.2d 657 (Or. Ct. App. 1992).

Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022). “530(1)(a) in similar terms: “The scope of subsection (1)(a), ORS 138.530 can best be described in relation to subsection (1)(b).”

Mueller v. Benning, 841 P.2d 640 (Or. 1992).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(3) — 3 cases

Penrod v. Cupp, 581 P.2d 934 (Or. 1978).

Welch v. Gladden, 453 P.2d 907 (Or. 1969).

McClure v. Maass, 771 P.2d 275 (Or. 1989).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(a) — 1 case

Welch v. Gladden, 453 P.2d 907 (Or. 1969).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(l)(a) — 67 cases

Green v. Franke, 350 P.3d 188 (Or. 2015).

Hinton v. Hill, 105 P.3d 923 (Or. Ct. App. 2005).

Eklof v. Steward, 385 P.3d 1074 (Or. 2016).

Palmer v. State of Oregon, 867 P.2d 1368 (Or. 1994). “6 ORS 138.530(1) provides in full: “Post-conviction relief pursuant to [the Post-Conviction Hearing Act] shall be granted by the court when one or more of the following grounds is established by the petitioner: “(a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in…”

Lichau v. Baldwin, 39 P.3d 851 (Or. 2002).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(l)(b) — 5 cases

Stroup v. Hill, 103 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Riggs v. State, 622 P.2d 327 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

State v. Belzons, 915 P.2d 428 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

Brown v. Zenon, 891 P.2d 666 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).

Calahan v. State, 925 P.2d 133 (Or. Ct. App. 1996).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(l)(c) — 16 cases

Walton v. Thompson, 102 P.3d 687 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Thus, we indicated in Pettibone that (1) the references to “ground” in ORS 138.530 and ORS 138.550 mean the same thing, and (2) because one “ground” for post-conviction relief is a violation of a petitioner’s constitutional rights, a constitutional ground that could not…”

Stroup v. Hill, 103 P.3d 1157 (Or. Ct. App. 2004).

Stacey v. State, 569 P.2d 640 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

Blackledge v. Morrow, 26 P.3d 851 (Or. Ct. App. 2001).

DeAngelo v. Schiedler, 757 P.2d 1355 (Or. 1988).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.530(l)(d) — 5 cases

Goodwin v. State, 866 P.2d 466 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).

State v. Reed, 608 P.2d 175 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

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.