concluding that a federal rule did not apply retroactively and that, "[a]s a result, we do not need to decide whether petitioner's claims were untimely under ORS 138.510 or were precluded by the successive petition bar of ORS 138.550"
Summary of this case from Chavez v. StateJanuary 22, 2003
concluding that a federal rule did not apply retroactively and that, "[a]s a result, we do not need to decide whether petitioner's claims were untimely under ORS 138.510 or were precluded by the successive petition bar of ORS 138.550"
Summary of this case from Chavez v. StateFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 22, 2003
Because we affirm the dismissal on the merits based on the issue of retroactivity, we do not address whether…
Walton v. ThompsonSee Moen v. Petterson, 312 Or 503, 508-10, 824 P2d 404 (1991) ("a court must analyze retroactivity when…