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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615 (2026)

Grounds for setting aside order; procedure; appeal

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

      419C.615 Grounds for setting aside order; procedure; appeal. (1) In addition to any other grounds upon which a person may petition a court under ORS 419C.610, a person may petition the court on the following grounds to set aside an order finding the person to be within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419C.005:

      (a) A substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in the person’s adjudication, or in the appellate review of the adjudication, of the person’s rights under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, or both, and the denial rendered the adjudication void; or

      (b) Unconstitutionality of the statute making criminal, if the person were an adult, the acts for which the person was adjudicated.

      (2) When a person petitions the court on one of the grounds listed in subsection (1) of this section:

      (a) A copy of the petition shall be served on the district attorney, who shall represent the state in the matter.

      (b) The court shall decide the issues raised. The court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions and other competent evidence. Oral testimony may be taken by telephone or other means approved by the court. The petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the facts alleged in the petition.

      (c) The court shall set aside the order finding the petitioner to be within the jurisdiction of the court if the petitioner establishes one of the grounds set forth in subsection (1) of this section.

      (3) Either the petitioner or the state may appeal from the court’s order granting or denying a petition for relief under this section. The manner of taking the appeal and the scope of review are the same as provided under ORS 419A.200.

      (4) Nothing in this section may be construed to limit the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in habeas corpus as provided by the Oregon Constitution. [2001 c.803 §3]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2025 · leading case: Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). · cites it 11× “923 enacted another juvenile code provision — Or Laws 2001, ch 803, § 3, codified as ORS 419C.615 — that established specific rules and standards for delinquent youths to seek post-adjudication relief that includes the setting aside of earlier judgments or orders.”
Smith v. Jester, 228 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 16× “ORS 419C.615 authorizes a *632 youth offender, who has been adjudicated to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to petition the juvenile court to set aside a jurisdictional order on grounds similar to those that may be alleged in a petition for post-conviction…”
State v. C. L. E., 502 P.3d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “Youth contends that his adjudication was in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights because (1) youth was not competent to be adjudicated at the time that he entered his plea; and (2) youth’s trial counsel rendered inade- quate and ineffective assistance by…”
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.), 426 P.3d 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “Although ORS 419C.615 was enacted after the 1993 revision to the juvenile court code, as the Supreme Court has recognized, later-enacted statutes are "indirect evidence of what the enacting legislature most likely intended" to the extent that they demonstrate consistency or…”
State v. J. T.-B., 476 P.3d 538 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 13× “Held: The trial court erred in denying youth’s motion for appointment of counsel.”
State v. J. J.-M., 387 P.3d 426 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “Pursuant to ORS 419C.615, youth petitioned the juvenile court to set aside the judgment finding him within its jurisdiction.”
Perez v. Cain, 444 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2019). “510 be tolled for juveniles, in view of the tolling granted to children within the juvenile court's jurisdiction under ORS 419C.615. We do not consider those contentions because no party developed them below and they are unpreserved for that reason.”
State v. J. S. W. (In re J. S. W.), 434 P.3d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “610(1), for reasons including a "substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in the person's adjudication * * * of the person's rights under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, or both," if "the denial rendered the adjudication void," ORS 419C.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. L. (Or. 2016). · cites it 12× “923 enacted another juvenile code provision—Or Laws 2001, ch 803, § 3, codified as ORS 419C.615—that established specific rules and standards for delinquent youths to seek post-adjudication relief that includes the setting aside of earlier judgments or orders.”
State v. E. C.-P. (In re E. C.-P.), 410 P.3d 1045 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “613, and govern the juvenile equivalent of post-conviction relief, ORS 419C.615 and ORS 419C.616. Youth has not argued that the juvenile court violated the findings requirement in paragraph (2).”
State v. J. A. B., 333 Or. App. 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “Youth raises one assignment of error, in which he contends that the juvenile court erred in rejecting his single claim for relief under ORS 419C.615 (1)(a).1 In that claim, youth alleged that he was denied his right to adequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11,…”
State v. D. W. N., 566 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “610, a person may petition the court on the following grounds to set aside an order finding the person to be within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(1) — 3 cases
State v. S.-Q. K. (In re S.-Q. K.), 426 P.3d 659 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “Although ORS 419C.615 was enacted after the 1993 revision to the juvenile court code, as the Supreme Court has recognized, later-enacted statutes are "indirect evidence of what the enacting legislature most likely intended" to the extent that they demonstrate consistency or…”
State v. J. T.-B., 476 P.3d 538 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “Held: The trial court erred in denying youth’s motion for appointment of counsel.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. L. (Or. 2016). “923 enacted another juvenile code provision—Or Laws 2001, ch 803, § 3, codified as ORS 419C.615—that established specific rules and standards for delinquent youths to seek post-adjudication relief that includes the setting aside of earlier judgments or orders.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. J. S. W. (In re J. S. W.), 434 P.3d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “610(1), for reasons including a "substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in the person's adjudication * * * of the person's rights under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, or both," if "the denial rendered the adjudication void," ORS 419C.”
State v. D. W. N., 566 P.3d 1247 (Or. Ct. App. 2025). “610, a person may petition the court on the following grounds to set aside an order finding the person to be within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS 419C.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(2) — 2 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T. L., 369 P.3d 1159 (Or. 2016). “923 enacted another juvenile code provision — Or Laws 2001, ch 803, § 3, codified as ORS 419C.615 — that established specific rules and standards for delinquent youths to seek post-adjudication relief that includes the setting aside of earlier judgments or orders.”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. T. L. (Or. 2016). “923 enacted another juvenile code provision—Or Laws 2001, ch 803, § 3, codified as ORS 419C.615—that established specific rules and standards for delinquent youths to seek post-adjudication relief that includes the setting aside of earlier judgments or orders.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(2)(a) — 1 case
Smith v. Jester, 228 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 419C.615 authorizes a *632 youth offender, who has been adjudicated to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to petition the juvenile court to set aside a jurisdictional order on grounds similar to those that may be alleged in a petition for post-conviction…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(2)(b) — 3 cases
Smith v. Jester, 228 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 419C.615 authorizes a *632 youth offender, who has been adjudicated to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to petition the juvenile court to set aside a jurisdictional order on grounds similar to those that may be alleged in a petition for post-conviction…”
State v. J. S. W. (In re J. S. W.), 434 P.3d 481 (Or. Ct. App. 2018). “610(1), for reasons including a "substantial denial in the proceedings resulting in the person's adjudication * * * of the person's rights under the United States Constitution or the Oregon Constitution, or both," if "the denial rendered the adjudication void," ORS 419C.”
State v. J. A. B., 333 Or. App. 629 (Or. Ct. App. 2024). “Youth raises one assignment of error, in which he contends that the juvenile court erred in rejecting his single claim for relief under ORS 419C.615 (1)(a).1 In that claim, youth alleged that he was denied his right to adequate assistance of counsel under Article I, section 11,…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(2)(c) — 1 case
Smith v. Jester, 228 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 419C.615 authorizes a *632 youth offender, who has been adjudicated to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to petition the juvenile court to set aside a jurisdictional order on grounds similar to those that may be alleged in a petition for post-conviction…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 419C.615(l)(a) — 1 case
Smith v. Jester, 228 P.3d 1232 (Or. Ct. App. 2010). “ORS 419C.615 authorizes a *632 youth offender, who has been adjudicated to be within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, to petition the juvenile court to set aside a jurisdictional order on grounds similar to those that may be alleged in a petition for post-conviction…”
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.