138.570 Who
shall be named as defendant; counsel for defendant. If the petitioner is imprisoned,
the petition shall name as defendant the official charged with the confinement
of petitioner. If the petitioner is not imprisoned, the defendant shall be the
State of Oregon. Whenever the defendant is the superintendent of a Department
of Corrections institution, the Attorney General shall act as the
superintendent’s attorney in the proceedings. Whenever the defendant is some
other official charged with the confinement of petitioner, the district
attorney of the county wherein the petitioner is imprisoned shall be the
attorney for the defendant. Whenever petitioner is not imprisoned, counsel for
the State of Oregon as defendant shall be the district attorney of the county
in which petitioner’s conviction and sentence were rendered. Whenever the
petitioner is released from imprisonment during the pendency of any proceedings
pursuant to ORS 138.510 to 138.680, the State of Oregon shall be substituted as
defendant. Upon such substitution, counsel for the original defendant shall
continue to serve as counsel for the substituted defendant. [1959 c.636 §7;
1983 c.505 §15; 1987 c.320 §45]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case:
Peeples v. Lampert, 191 P.3d 637 (Or. 2008).
Peeples v. Lampert, 191 P.3d 637 (Or. 2008).
· cites it 2× “ORS 138.570. For ease of reference and clarity, we refer to the defendants in petitioner's Malheur County and Marion County proceedings as "the state.”
Watkins v. Ackley, 523 P.3d 86 (Or. 2022).
“” 4 While ORS 138.570 provides that a petition for post-conviction relief “shall name as defendant the official charged with the confinement of the petitioner,” in this opinion, we refer to “the state” as the defendant.”
Ingle v. Matteucci, 537 P.3d 895 (Or. 2023).
· cites it 2× “The state1 moved to dismiss the petition, assert- ing that petitioner’s mental impairments were irrelevant to 1 At the trial-court level, a person who brings a post-conviction case is the “petitioner” and the adverse party is the “defendant.”
Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014).
“As provided in ORS 138.570, he named the *573 superintendent of the institution as defendant.”
Maney v. Angelozzi, 397 P.3d 567 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“See ORS 138.570 (requiring that petitions for post-conviction relief name, as the defendant, the superintendent of the facility in which the petitioner is serving sentence).”
Cunningham v. Thompson, 62 P.3d 823 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“2 For clarity, we refer to defendant in this post-conviction proceeding, who is the superintendent of the correctional institution where petitioner is confined, see ORS 138.570, as “the state.” 3 Petitioner’s criminal trial counsel, Hendershott, testified in the post-conviction…”
Everett v. Premo, 380 P.3d 1099 (Marion Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016).
“ORS 138.570. Article I, section 11, states, in relevant part, that, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right ⅜⅜⅜ to be heard by ⅜⅜* counsel[.”
Rutherford v. City of Klamath Falls, 526 P.2d 645 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “*106 ORS 138.570 ③ further indicates that the legislature considered only violation of state statute.”
Phelps v. State, 901 P.2d 965 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “*367 The state argues that the court did not err in dismissing petitioner’s petition because it should have been filed in Marion County and, under ORS 138.570, 1 should have named as defendant the Superintendent of OSCI instead of the State of Oregon.”
Farmer v. Premo, 390 P.3d 1054 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
“When a petitioner for post-conviction relief is imprisoned, as in this case, ORS 138.570 provides that the petition “shall name as defendant the official charged with the confinement of petitioner”; in other circumstances, the named defendant is the state.”
Corona v. Amsberry, 393 P.3d 248 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” *416 • “The Petition fails to meet the requirements of ORS 138.570 and/or 138.580.” The court subsequently entered a judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice.”
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.