The Oregon Supreme Court visited the law school on March 8 to hear oral arguments in pending cases and to answer student questions. Professor David Schuman, a former judge of the Oregon Court of Appeals, previewed the cases for law students on March 7.
The Court heard two cases. Below are the briefs for both cases.
State of Oregon v. Tracy Lynn Lien
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review in this criminal case to decide (1) when a person relinquishes his protected possessory interest in his garbage; (2) when a person relinquishes his protected privacy interest in his garbage; and (3) whether a manager of a private garbage company is acting as a state agent when, at the request of police, he collects a customer’s garbage in an atypical manner, so that it may be identified with the customer for evidentiary purposes, rather than allowing it to be collected in the ordinary course of business and comingled with other people’s garbage.
Before trial, the defendants asked the trial court to suppress the evidence the State found in their trash because defendants claimed the State did not have authority under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution to search their trash without a warrant. The trial court denied their motion, and they subsequently pled guilty of one count each of delivery of illegal drugs. The defendants appealed, and the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. State v. Lien, 283 Or. App. 334, 387 P.3d 489 (2017). The defendants asked the Supreme Court to review that decision. On appeal, the defendants are the appellants and the State of Oregon is the respondent. The first PDF listed above contains these documents:
Appellants’ Opening Brief (page 3).
Appellants’ excerpt of the record (page 47).
Respondent’s Answering Brief (page 67).
Respondent’s Appendix attaching Lebanon Code of Ordinances regarding solid waste management (page 93).
The Appellants’ Petition for Review, in which the defendant’s ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (page 106).
The Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to deny defendants’ motion to suppress (page 125).
Appellants’ Opening Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 136).
The Appellants’ excerpt of the record, which includes the indictment, defendants’ memoranda in support of their motion to suppress, and the judge’s ruling denying the motion (page 159).
The Respondent’s Answering Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 219).
Appellant’s Reply Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 228).
Esteban Chavez v. State of Oregon
The Oregon Supreme Court granted review in this post-conviction relief case to decide whether (1) Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or. 379, 84 P.3d 133 (2004), was incorrectly decided; (2) whether retroactivity is a factor to be considered under Oregon’s post-conviction relief statutes; (3) whether Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) , announced a new constitutional rule that could not reasonably have been anticipated; and (4) whether a petitioner may be presumed to know the deportation consequences of a criminal conviction so that he could reasonably have timely raised his Sixth Amendment claim for relief under ORS 138.510(3).
In this case, Estaban petitioned the court for post-conviction relief, claiming that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. Chavez v. State, 283 Or. App. 788, 790, P.3d 801, 801 (2017). The state moved to dismiss the petition as untimely under ORS 138.510(3), which requires petitions for post-conviction relief to be filed within two years of the date a defendant is convicted. Esteban claims that he did not file a timely petition for relief because, before the United States Supreme Court decided Padilla v. Kentucky, he did not have any grounds to assert ineffective assistance of council. ORS 138.510 provides an exception to the two-year statute of limitations for issues that “could not reasonably have been raised” in a timely manner. Thus, Esteban argued that he could not reasonably have raised a claim for relief under Padilla because Padilla had not yet been decided. In response, the State argued that Padilla could have been reasonably anticipated, so the statute of limitations applies. On the merits of Esteban’s petition, the State argued Padilla does not apply retroactively.
The State moved to dismiss Esteban’s petition for relief, and the trial court granted the State’s motion. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, and Esteban asked the Oregon Supreme Court to review that decision. On appeal, Esteban is the appellant and the State of Oregon is the respondent. The first PDF listed above contains these documents:
Appellant’s Opening Brief (page 3).
Appellant’s excerpt of the record (page 52).
Respondent’s Answering Brief (page 86).
The Appellant’s Petition for Review, in which the defendant asks the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals (page 130).
The Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the trial court’s decision to grant the State’s motion to dismiss (page 160).
The Multnomah County Circuit Court’s Order granting the State’s motion to dismiss (page 174).
Appellant’s Opening Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 182).
Appellant’s excerpt of the record (page 236).
Respondent’s Answering Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 284).
Appellant’s Reply Brief to the Court of Appeals (page 313).