Stelts v. State
Decision Date | 18 June 1985 |
Docket Number | Nos. TC,s. TC |
Parties | Ruye STELTS, Petitioner on Review, v. STATE of Oregon, Respondent on Review. C83-01-30170; CA A28588; SC S30721. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Roger Hennagin, Lake Oswego, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner on review.
Robert M. Atkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the briefs were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., and Jan Peter Londahl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Thomas C. Bernier, Roseburg, filed a brief amicus curiae for Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Ass'n.
The issue is whether one who pleads guilty without knowledge of his constitutional right of confrontation must, in order to obtain post-conviction relief, establish that he would not have pleaded guilty had he been aware of his right. We hold that he does not have to establish such "prejudice."
In June, 1979, plaintiff pleaded guilty in District Court to a charge of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants. Judgment of conviction was entered on that plea. He took no appeal. In January, 1983, after the time for appeal had expired, he commenced this case under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act, ORS 138.510 to 138.680, to set aside the conviction, alleging that the District Court judge had failed to advise him of his state and federal constitutional rights of confrontation and freedom from self-incrimination. Specifically, he proceeded under ORS 138.530(1)(a), which provides:
On trial he introduced a tape recording of the proceedings before the District Court in June, 1979. That tape reveals that the court's advice on constitutional rights was as follows:
Petitioner testified that he had once been a witness for the prosecution in a criminal case and that he had seen courtroom scenes as portrayed in movie and television programs, namely, "Perry Mason" and "Your Day in Court."
Petitioner relied on Boag v. State, 44 Or.App. 99, 605 P.2d 304 (1980), in which the court stated:
44 Or.App. at 101, 605 P.2d 304.
The state's position at trial was that the advice was sufficient to satisfy the constitution and that, in any event, the record on trial in this case showed that petitioner was aware of his rights and waived them.
The trial court found that petitioner was advised of his right against self-incrimination 1 and stated:
Those findings are binding on the Court of Appeals and this court unless the court can affirmatively say there is no evidence to support them. Or.Const.Art. VII (Amend), § 3.
We agree with the Court of Appeals' decision which stated:
Stelts v. State of Oregon, 67 Or.App. 364, 368, 677 P.2d 1106 (1984).
On appeal petitioner contended that the district court judge had failed to follow Boag v. State, supra. The state's first position was:
"Petitioner correctly cites Boag v. State for the proposition that the post-conviction court improperly allocated the burden of proof in this case."
The state's second position was that Boag v. State, supra, should be overruled. The third position was that the error, if any, was harmless because petitioner had not shown that he was prejudiced by the failure to warn.
The Court of Appeals held that the burden of proof is properly placed on the petitioner for post-conviction relief to establish a denial of his constitutional right, but that he meets the burden by introducing the transcript of the proceedings in the court of conviction showing that he was not advised of his right and by testifying that he had no independent knowledge of the right. At that point, held the Court of Appeals, the burden of persuasion shifts to the state, which must then offer evidence that the waiver was knowing and voluntary in order to prevail. The Court of Appeals held that the state had failed to meet its burden to show that the petitioner had independent knowledge of his right of confrontation.
We believe that the Court of Appeals' holding in this respect is actually an affirmative statement that there is no evidence to support the trial court's finding that petitioner knew of his right of confrontation. If so, we agree; if not, we affirmatively say so.
The Court of Appeals then held, however, that petitioner had to establish prejudice by showing that he would have acted differently had he known of his right of confrontation. The Court of Appeals found that petitioner had presented no such evidence and, indeed, that the evidence tended to show that he would not have acted any differently. For want of the showing of that kind of "prejudice," the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the state.
The state then argued in this court that this mere claim of statutory violation by the conviction court was not cognizable by a post-conviction court because only the denial of constitutional rights may be addressed in this post-conviction proceeding.
Before addressing a claim by a defendant that the state has deprived him of liberty without due process of law, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution, we ordinarily first consider whether the defendant is entitled to prevail under a state statute. If so, there is no state action of which complaint may be made by the defendant. If not, we consider whether the state action offends the state constitution. If so, defendant will prevail under state law, and there is no need to consider the Due Process Clause. If not, then we must address a defendant's claim under the Due Process Clause.
In this case that method of analysis is not completely open to us because denial of constitutional rights is the only basis for a claim for relief under ORS 138.530(1)(a). The state is correct, therefore, that we are foreclosed from granting relief for violation of ORS 135.385 qua statute. Insofar as the state constitution is concerned, we note that although petitioner has pleaded that he did not validly waive his right to confrontation under Article I, section 12, of the Oregon Constitution, he has not relied on any argument based on the text of section 12 or any case construing it. In these circumstances we shall not address the state constitutional claim.
What is left is to determine whether he has invoked and asserted denial of his rights under the Due Process Clause. He did plead that he did not validly waive his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause. In the trial court ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Smith
...entered without an adequate statement by the judge of the right to confrontation that is relinquished by the plea. Stelts v. State, 299 Or. 252, 259, 701 P.2d 1047 (1985) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 In view of these principles long ago adopted......
-
Adams v. Peterson
...maximum possible sentence from consecutive sentences. Or.Rev.Stat. Sec. 135.385. The Supreme Court of Oregon, in Stelts v. State of Oregon, 299 Or. 252, 701 P.2d 1047 (Or.1985), has explained unequivocally that this state text is a "statement of Due Process Clause law developed by the Supre......
-
State v. Rogers
...We address issues of state statutory and constitutional law before resolving issues of federal constitutional law. Stelts v. State, 299 Or. 252, 257, 701 P.2d 1047 (1985); State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 262, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983). However, for purposes of this case, we assume, without decidi......
-
Hughes v. State
...the federal constitution, however, we first address petitioners' arguments under the Oregon Constitution. See Stelts v. State of Oregon, 299 Or. 252, 257, 701 P.2d 1047 (1985) (questions of state law shall be considered and disposed of before reaching a claim that this state's law falls sho......