Palmer v. State of Oregon

In this post-conviction relief proceeding, petitioner contends that ORS 166.250 is unconstitutional because it does not define the term “concealed.” I write separately, *385because petitioner has not alleged a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief.

After his conviction under ORS 166.250, petitioner sought direct appellate review. At trial and on appeal, he did not challenge the constitutionality of ORS 166.250. He makes that challenge for the first time in this proceeding under ORS lSSNSOdXd).1 ORS 138.550(2) says, in part:

“[N]o ground for relief may be asserted by petitioner in a petition…