kroger’s request to oregon supreme court to dismiss petition to block haugen’s execution

8/6/2019 Krogers request to Oregon Supreme Court to dismiss petition to block Haugens execution

1/19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGONSTATE OF OREGON,

Plaintiff-Adverse Party,v.

GARYHAUGEN,Defendant-Relator.

Marion County CircuitCourt No. 04C46224Appellate Court No. 'Supreme Court No. S059519MANDAMUS PROCEEDINGMEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

The Oregon Capital Resource Center (OCRC) filed a petition for writ ofmandamus, purportedly on behalf ofGary Haugen. OCRC does not representMr. Haugen and concedes that "Mr. Haugen has not requested [OCRC] to filethis petition." (Pet. 1). Nevertheless, OCRC seeks a peremptory or alternativewrit ofmandamus directing the circuit court, Honorable Joseph Guimond, tovacate a "death warrant" issued against Mr. Haugen and to "conduct a hearingto determine whether Mr. Haugen is competent to be executed." (Pet 4). Thiscourt should deny the petition because OCRC lacks standing to pursue anyclaims on Mr. Haugen's behalf.A. Introduction and Background

This mandamus proceeding relates to the scheduled execution ofGaryHaugen. On May 18, 2011, Marion County Circuit Court Judge Joseph

Page 1 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Department of JusticeI 162 Court StreetNESalem, OR 97301-4096

(503) 378-4402


2/19

Guimond held a hearing, found Mr. Haugen competent to be executed, andissued a "death warrant." (Tr 34; Death Warrant, attached to mandamus

petition). In this mandamus proceeding, aCRC claims that Judge Guimond hasa duty to vacate the death warrant and hold a new competency hearing.

Leading up to the death warrant hearing,Mr. Haugen was represented byhis attorneys Andy Simrin and W. Keith Goody, neither ofwhom is affiliatedwith OCRC. Mr. Simrin andMr. Goody had moved the court to find Mr.Haugen incompetent Of , in the alternative, to hold a competency hearing.(Motion to Find Defendant Incompetent, attached to mandamus petition). But,at the death warrant hearing, Mr. Haugen requested to proceed without counseland to withdraw the motion that his attorneys had filed on his behalf. (Tr 3-4,13,15; Art 1).1 After a colloquy, the court determined that Mr. Haugen'swaiver was "competent, knowing, and voluntary" and, thus, granted his request.(Tr 13 (reciting standard from ORS 137.463(3)(a); Art 2-4). The court

Mr. Haugen explained that his attorneys had filed the motion withouthis consent. (Tr 16).

Page 2 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Department of JusticeJ162Court Street NESalem, OR 97301-4096(503) 378-4402


3/19

ordered that Mr. Simrin and Mr. Goody would continue to serve as Mr.Haugen's legal advisors. (Tr 13).

The court then questioned Mr. Haugen and, ultimately, determined thathe is competent to be executed. (Tr 34). The court scheduled the execution totake place August 16,2011. (Tr 36; Death Warrant, attached to mandamuspetition).

On June 13,2011, OCRC-an independent entity unrelated to theunderlying proceedings-filed the present petition for writ ofmandamus. In itspetition, OCRC argues that Judge Guimond erred by allowing Mr. Haugen todischarge his attorneys. (Pet 5-7). As explained below, OCRC lacks authorityto present that claim on Mr. Haugen's behalf.B. This court should deny OCRC's petition because OCRC lacksstanding to pursue its claims and lacks authority to pursue any claims onMr. Haugen's behalf.

OCRC has no direct interest in Mr. Haugen's case. It does not representMr. Haugen in this or any other litigation, and, in fact, it has filed the presentpetition without Mr. Haugen's consent. Consequently, aCRC lacks standingand authority to raise any claims related to Mr. Haugen and this court shoulddeny the petition.

Page 3 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Department of Justice1162 Court StreetNESalem, OR 97301-4096(503) 378-4402


4/19

"Standing" is "the right to obtain an adjudication." Eckles v. State, 306Or 380,383, 760 P2d 846 (1988). A person without standing has "no right to

have a tribunal decide a claim under the law defming the requested relief,regardless whether another plaintiffhas any such right." Id. at 383.

Whether a particular person has standing to bring a particular claim"depends upon the type of relief sought and commonly is governed by aspecific statutory standard." Eckles, 306 Or at 384. Generally, "for [a] party tohave standing, [the] court's decision must have some practical effect on [the]partyls rights." Strunk v. PERB, 338 Or 145, 153, 108 P3d 1058 (2005) (citingBrumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 848 P2d 1194 (1993)). But the legislature mayauthorize suits brought by others as well. Kellas v. Dept. ofCorrections, 341Or 471, 484, 145 P3d 139 (2006) ("[T]he legislature can recognize the right ofany citizen to initiate a judicial action to enforce matters of public interest.").Thus, to determine whether a person has standing, this court looks to therelevant statutory scheme to determine the legislature's intent. Eckles, 306 Orat 384; Local No. 290 v. Dept. of Environ. Quality, 323 Or 559,566,919 P2d1168 (1996) (standing is conferred by the legislature and controlled by the typeof relief sought).

Page 4 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Department of Justice1162 Court Street NESalem, OR 97301-4096(503) 378-4402


5/19

aCRC has not alleged standing in its own right. And aCRC, of course,does not represent Mr. Haugen. Consequently, it does not have any authority to

seek mandamus as his agent. See Vaughn v. First Transit, Inc" 346 ar 128,135,206 P3d 181 (2009) (agency relationship is one "that results from themanifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act onbehalfand subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act. '" (emphasisand internal quotation marks omitted)); see also aRS 9.310-340 (definingattorney-client relationships).2

I f aCRC has authority to seek relief onMr. Haugen's behalf, it can beonly because the legislature has authorized some form of "third-party" standingin mandamus proceedings. But the relevant statutes do not contemplate third-party standing in mandamus proceedings. Therefore, aCRC lacks standing topursue its claims, and this com1 should dismiss this case.

The legislature has authorized third-party standing in numerous contexts.For example, ORS 183.400 allows "any person" to challenge the "validity ofany [administrative] rule" in the Court ofAppeals. See generally Kellas v.

2 In fact, Mr. Haugen is adamant that he does not want aCRC to filethe present mandamus petition on his behalf. (Att 5).Page 5 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920

Department of Justice1162 Court StreetNESalem, OR 97301-4096(503) 3784402


6/19


7/19

(emphasis added). Similarly, "the relator shall serve a copy of the petition onthe defendant" and on other relevant parties. ORS 34.130(2) (emphasis added).

The "relator" in this case-the "beneficially interested party"-is Mr.Haugen. And nothing in ORS chapter 34 contemplates anyone other than Mr.Haugen himself (or his counsel) seeking mandamus relief on his behalf. Thus,the legislature has not authorized third-party standing in this case. Had thelegislature intended to do so, it easily could have.

Federal courts recognize a form of third-party standing in habeas corpuscases known as "next friend" standing. A "friend" of an inmate may bring ahabeas corpus action on the inmate's behalf if the person can establish "(1) thatthe petitioner is unable to litigate his own cause due to mental incapacity, lackof access to court, or other similar disability; and (2) [that] the next friend hassome significant relationship with, and is truly dedicated to the best interests of,the petitioner." Massie ex reI. Kroll v. Woodford, 244 F3d 1192, 1194 (9th Cir2001); see generally Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 US 149, 163-64, 110 SCt 1717,109 LEd2d 135 (1990) (explaining "next friend" doctrine).

As explained above, the legislature has authorized similar third-partystanding in capital post-conviction cases. In fact, the Post-Conviction Hearing

Page 7 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Department of Justice1162 Court StreetNESalem, OR 97301-4096

(503) 378-4402


8/19


9/19

CONCLUSIONBecause OCRC lacks standing to seek mandamus on relator's behalf, this

court should deny the petition for writ ofmandamus.Respectfully submitted,JOHNR. KROGER #077207Attorney GeneralMARY H. WILLIAMS #911241Solicitor General/s/ Jeremy C. Rice :5Z---.JEREMY C. RICE #055416Assistant Attorney [email protected] for Plaintiff-Adverse PartyState ofOregon

Page 9 - MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITIONJCR:elk\2859920Departmentof Justice1162Court Street NESalem, OR 97301-4096(503) 378-4402


10/19

Art - 1I ., I'D i, 'n ' { A L i ~ ' i T ( " ( / C,12(J.-('(r(OUiTl '1 I 1/)! }\11'I\).)v ILl., ,?'t{{h fr/ /(..fj/lf.l C A , S 2 / ~ , C L 1 C ) ' 1 ~ J - . d YJC[14/


11/19

Att - 2

THE STATE OF OREGON

JOSEPH G, GUIMONDCIRCUJT COURT JUDGE

Dated a{ Salem, Oregon, Ihls '20 day ofMay, 201 I.Is! Joseph C. Guimond

1:;(- 1 1 , ~ h A/4r


12/19

Att-3

JOSEPH C, GUIMONDCIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

THIS MATIER coming on before HIe Conrt on 05118/11: the defendant appearing personally llndwith his fonner attomcys (now advisors), Andy Simrin and Keith Goody, and the Statlj ofOregonappearing by DONALD D, ABARllnd DOUGLAS C. HANSON, DeputyDlstl'ict Altomeys for MarionCOHnty; and lIrgilments having been presented to the Court by respecHve cDunsel .md the defendant, lind theCourtbeing fully advised in the premises; NOW, THEREFORE,

THE COURT FINDS lhnlthe defendant, Omy Haugen, procceds 1)1'0 so, with Andy Simrin andKeith Goody as advisors only; tharthe defendant, Gury Haugen, requests this CourtwitlHlrnw theprcviously silb'mitted defonse Motion to FindDefendliritlncompetent 10 Execute, 01' in (he Altemative 10Continuc mid to Schedllle Evidential)' Hearing, which motion was tiled by Ami>, Sirnrln and Keith G()odywllhQut defendant's knowledge, consent or a p p r ~ v a l ; now, therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defenseMotion 10 rind DefendnntIncompelent to Execute, 01' in the Altel'flative to Continue and to Schechlle EvidentiaryHearing is herebywithdrawn by the defendant. Gary HlIugen.

Dated at Salem, Oregon, this -Z(L dllY ofMay, 2011.ls i ~ 1 0 i j > l p h C. Gilimond

THE STATE OF OREGONORDER WlTHDRAWlNG DEFENDANT'S MOTIONTO FIND DEFENDANT INCOMPETENT TOEXECUTE, OR IN THE ALTBRNA 1'1VBTOCONTINUE AND TO SCHEDULE EVIDENTlAR.YHEARING

0[1>. M4Y2 ~ ( '


13/19

Att-4

To 'I1rE: &f210Vi : S V l j J ! Z ~ C t ) U f 2 rDn S\J\V\{; /3, d-Di I f!-170PI1t:--y . 1 b P F Q . ~ !5,sltrs-S IA\J '{Y\\\It) 1) A MJfI-v1D'iW;; 1t15 / J7ll ()L-frJIVli1t O V l 6 C V 1 T ~ '

PLt:l5: 't\:s \vt15s \'VI 12 , {; Il ;S I L1 VI f/IAYh O P - t ' : 2 ~~ n ' l \ \ DV\ 8 r r 5 ~ i J OV\ ~ Q WIlIY{.vGL)j, h-b."2J10(yY\ 0iLlTl35 \'\'fffn141/iI;-

Received~ ? 6 2 ~ ; ]

I Safem(Oregonttorney Oeneru , : : . . . ~ _-....,.-.. _ . - .


14/19


15/19

Att-6

Wf)!)ffl)1

() , ~ feit;..'.,.) .)... l'J'oH'/ , ,;;,.. I "

It'" .' Ij. ' .. i ! /""{ 'f:_" '(.1' \ ~ " " ,po.J

itT fJO~ r h A l ~ I"l;J I),) ff}6YC'

/ ' , /didl1 ?I ulld(!2Jf)'1/Jc/ ,{,J/')f


16/19

Att-7" , ~ ~ ) I 1 f i / ) : n h t . : t W E { ' ~ l 1 111c--" I' {)R; (FU IC , /1/lc(( himQ ct ;::/ n:;- I ( ~ / : ; ; T - 1112:.7:" A I ( , Y I t ; ~ ~ t ~ i fI) . ( J / ~

L I LL:;" ; /) ft:-ilUt' ( . ~ " ; t - J 2"C( O')I}cl 150;).1(.1.4 T ".( i Z-IN'- - D I )e ( j H6'" C77/J/}Vt /LIOLJ 0CU/ /1} tj0(X/ f J ? / ~ 1 1 1fMl her !Y:://ev ~ I , I f't-1 //J t . . ~ C J : n 1 j J I ! : o ~ fe-/)l-/) - f fJlll- -:f----: dOilY LI/le!et5 /;+/lc! fA:.;, jJIO-C.(lOO He WOtt le i /)1.;; t.Jct' 1 ~ / A o l - ~ " IL.Y::Y' mGvw! /J/', t , , " ( ~ ; ; ' l A - I C , hll1"c/ / I t , ~ 1 t : ) 9 / . ~ , ' ) t i ~ I . / t . : : : ; t / 6 ~ ( ~ / f ,/11tf:,... J

,TO h In c:O/l'!jJI?it;Y}ft /}Jtj/MIIJ //1 e'7(', (Ft /-z. (3r.l)rli,c1 r 0 ,/). .

,," f $ f '/""'/1 ,- ..... } Llt;" v t Cll:;.': {.,L": It-JrU >. ""tJ ,r ;; ;_ . . ~ fI I I 1'10 {') ( IL.,t..:..:, G'


17/19

Att- 8

f- 1r1i1,1 ! i ~ i 1 1 q~

i ' } / ~ Jl / fL I. tJ

/ \ /l / / l ....f:.l ~ , ...,1, I f I'i t

rflre-J!lofc!YllfJ if/1V4!lJf v l 2 ~ CtJrr)jJ6Clj

~ h E r r.!O(;J l } ~ l l


18/19

Att-9

s f l b ' 5 ~ a F l A l \ 1 vv\OUE-'TC\.rs c.wP-TTj) Ai'!:M6s. .TI\ \:S Wt rtl'\ \J1'1WIUS vel-""'Q10 f'r II ow piJ 12 Vv11 bY _ .(U.T\0V\ t)V\ 4.'[ (,l jT 1["/k ;}.& I),

r: \f\;vV\ Or sou.vlf) IN\. 'I V\.cI AlA \) () \'JV[,k E : ~ S \ ~ [ t P u l \ ~ )

: ~ ~ J + ~ ~ ' 6 ' ; ; ; ~ ~ t-\l'\lAqEV)(j1'\'I'co'\J Th 5 \L \ ' I \ . ' \ : ~ f 1 ~ 0FJu,\I\f: 0Il,


19/19

NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICEI certify that on June 17, 2011, I directed the original Memorandum in

Opposition to be electronically filed with the Appellate Court Administrator,Appellate Records Section, and electronically served upon Jeffrey E. Ellis,attorney for relator, using the court's electronic filing system.

/s/ Jeremy C. RiceJEREMY C. RICE #055416Assistant Attorney [email protected] for Plaintiff-Adverse PartyState of Oregon

Page 1 - NOTICE OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICEJCR:e1k\JUSTICE-#2859920-vl-Haugen_(memo_in_oppositionLS059519.DOCDepartment of Justice

kroger’s request to oregon supreme court to dismiss petition to block haugen’s execution

Documents