Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Perez v. Cain

Court of Appeals of Oregon

May 22, 2019

ERNIE JUNIOR PEREZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Brad CAIN, Superintendent, Snake River Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

          Submitted April 6, 2018

          Malheur County Circuit Court 16CV29849, Erin K. Landis, Judge.

          Ernie Junior Perez fled the briefs pro se.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Jonathan N. Schildt, Assistant Attorney General, fled the briefs for respondent.

          Jedediah Peterson, O'Connor Weber LLC, Christa Obold Eshleman, and Youth, Rights & Justice fled the joint brief amicus curiae for O'Connor Weber LLC and Youth, Rights & Justice.

          Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         In this post-conviction appeal, the question presented is whether petitioner's claim that a juvenile court "must find that [a] youth possesses sufficient adult-like intellectual, social and emotional capabilities to have an adult-like understanding of the significance of his or her conduct, including its wrongfulness and its consequences for the youth, the victim and others" in order to waive a youth into adult court under ORS 419C.349, as required under State v. J. C. N.-V., 359 Or. 559, 597, 380 P.3d 248 (2016), is one that he reasonably could have raised in his earlier post-conviction proceeding initiated in 2009. Petitioner argues that a claim that the juvenile court erroneously failed to apply the waiver standard articulated in J. C. N.-V. could not reasonably have been raised until the Supreme Court decided J. C. N.-V. in 2016, and, therefore, he should be permitted to go forward with that claim in this successive post-conviction proceeding under [297 Or.App. 618] the escape clause of ORS 138.550(3). Held: Petitioner did not put forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that his J. C. N.-V. claim could not reasonably have been raised in his original post-conviction petition.

         Affirmed.

         [297 Or.App. 619]LAGESEN, P.J.

         The question presented by this post-conviction appeal is whether petitioner's claim that a juvenile court "must find that [a] youth possesses sufficient adult-like intellectual, social and emotional capabilities to have an adult-like understanding of the significance of his or her conduct, including its wrongfulness and its consequences for the youth, the victim and others" in order to waive a youth into adult court under ORS 419C.349, as required under State v. J. C. N.-V, 359 Or. 559, 597, 380 P.3d 248 (2016), is one that he reasonably could have raised in his earlier post-conviction proceeding initiated in 2009. Petitioner, who is representing himself in this proceeding, contends that a claim that the juvenile court erroneously failed to apply the waiver standard articulated in J. C. N.-V. could not reasonably have been raised until the Supreme Court decided J. C. N.-V. in 2016, and, therefore, he should be permitted to go forward with that claim in this successive post-conviction proceeding under the escape clause of ORS 138.550(3). The post-conviction court concluded otherwise and dismissed the petition.

         To obtain a fuller perspective on the question presented, we requested amicus briefing from O'Connor Weber LLC, a law firm with considerable expertise in Oregon postconviction law, and from Youth, Rights & Justice, an organization with considerable expertise in Oregon juvenile law. They joined forces and submitted a thoughtful amicus brief, for which we are appreciative. Petitioner and the superintendent then submitted additional responsive briefing, for which we are grateful as well.

         Having considered the briefing by all parties, we conclude, for the reasons that follow, that petitioner has not put forth sufficient facts to demonstrate that his J. C. N.-V. claim could not reasonably have been raised in his original post-conviction petition. We ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.