Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.620 (2026)

Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

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

138.620 Hearing. (1) After the response of the defendant to the petition, the court shall proceed to a hearing on the issues raised. If the defendant’s response is by demurrer or motion raising solely issues of law, the circuit court need not order that petitioner be present at such hearing, as long as petitioner is represented at the hearing by counsel. At the hearing upon issues raised by any other response, the circuit court shall order that petitioner be present. Whenever the court orders that petitioner be present at the hearing, the court may order that petitioner appear by telephone or other communication device as provided in ORS 138.622 rather than in person.

(2) If the petition states a ground for relief, the court shall decide the issues raised and may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral testimony or other competent evidence. The burden of proof of facts alleged in the petition shall be upon the petitioner to establish such facts by a preponderance of the evidence. [1959 c.636 §12; 1996 c.4 §4; 2003 c.261 §4]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 104 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1961–2026 · leading case: Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014). · cites it 14× “Petitioner argues that, consistently with the statutory scheme, a petitioner is entitled, after filing his or her petition, to “pursue the discovery process” and proceed to a hearing where he or she may present additional evidence pertaining to the allegations, as provided in…”

Frost v. State of Oregon, 514 P.3d 1182 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 19× “Held: The post-conviction hearing statute at issue, ORS 138.620, generally requires a petitioner’s personal presence at hearings such as the one that occurred in this case.”

Ware v. Hall, 154 P.3d 118 (Or. 2007). · cites it 15× “610 directs the superintendent to respond to a petition “by demurrer, answer or motion”; and ORS 138.620 provides that the court “shall proceed to a hearing on the issues raised” by the response.”

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 342 P.3d 70 (Or. 2015). · cites it 6× “ORS 138.620(2); Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435 , 822 P2d 703 (1991).”

Montez v. Czerniak, 322 P.3d 487 (Or. 2014). · cites it 2× “Petitioner’s hearing, in which he bore the burden of proving the facts alleged in his petition by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 138.620(2), began in April 2004 and encompassed four days of testimony over a three-month period.”

Trujillo v. Maass, 822 P.2d 703 (Or. 1991). · cites it 3× “ORS 138.620(2); [6] see also ORS 138.530(1)(a) (post-conviction relief shall be granted when petitioner establishes a "substantial denial" of petitioner's constitutional rights in the proceedings resulting in the conviction, and that denial rendered the conviction void);…”

Snyder v. Amsberry, 474 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “However, in the context of post-conviction matters ORS 138.620 provides: “(1) After the response of the defendant to the petition, the court shall proceed to a hearing on the issues raised.”

Chew v. State, 855 P.2d 1120 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “ORS 138.620(2); ORS 138.530(1)(a). In order to prove his allegation of inadequate assistance of trial counsel under the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise professional skill and judgment, failed to diligently and conscientiously advance the…”

Whipple v. Hill, 120 P.3d 1251 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 7× “He argues that the post-conviction court committed plain error by entering a judgment that did not comply with ORS 138.620 and ORS 138.640. Because error is not apparent on the face of the record, ORAP 5.”

Sproule v. Coursey, 367 P.3d 946 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “To prevail on a Sixth Amendment claim of “ineffective assistance of counsel,” a petitioner must prove that counsel performed ineffectively under “prevailing professional norms” and that, “but for counsel’s unprofessional errors,” there is a “reasonable probability” that “the…”

Gable v. State, 305 P.3d 85 (Or. 2013). · cites it 3× “ORS 138.620(2).” The court then found that petitioner had failed to meet that burden.”

Lichau v. Baldwin, 39 P.3d 851 (Or. 2002). “See ORS 138.620(2) (establishing burden of proof); Stevens v.”

Show all 104 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.620(1) — 11 cases

Frost v. State of Oregon, 514 P.3d 1182 (Or. Ct. App. 2022). “Held: The post-conviction hearing statute at issue, ORS 138.620, generally requires a petitioner’s personal presence at hearings such as the one that occurred in this case.”

Ogle v. Nooth, 330 P.3d 572 (Or. 2014). “Petitioner argues that, consistently with the statutory scheme, a petitioner is entitled, after filing his or her petition, to “pursue the discovery process” and proceed to a hearing where he or she may present additional evidence pertaining to the allegations, as provided in…”

Kumar v. Schiedler, 876 P.2d 808 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Smith v. State, 717 P.2d 240 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

Ogle v. Nooth, 424 P.3d 759 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.620(2) — 81 cases

Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 342 P.3d 70 (Or. 2015). “ORS 138.620(2); Trujillo v. Maass, 312 Or 431, 435 , 822 P2d 703 (1991).”

Montez v. Czerniak, 322 P.3d 487 (Or. 2014). “Petitioner’s hearing, in which he bore the burden of proving the facts alleged in his petition by a preponderance of the evidence, ORS 138.620(2), began in April 2004 and encompassed four days of testimony over a three-month period.”

Trujillo v. Maass, 822 P.2d 703 (Or. 1991). “ORS 138.620(2); [6] see also ORS 138.530(1)(a) (post-conviction relief shall be granted when petitioner establishes a "substantial denial" of petitioner's constitutional rights in the proceedings resulting in the conviction, and that denial rendered the conviction void);…”

Chew v. State, 855 P.2d 1120 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). “ORS 138.620(2); ORS 138.530(1)(a). In order to prove his allegation of inadequate assistance of trial counsel under the Oregon Constitution, petitioner must show that counsel failed to exercise professional skill and judgment, failed to diligently and conscientiously advance the…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.620(2)(2005) — 1 case

Mariano-Santos v. Blacketter, 532 F. Supp. 2d 1254 (D. Or. 2006).

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.