she brought a motion to seal the records of that misdemeanor conviction pursuant to ORS 137.225. The trial court’s order sealed some records but excluded others from being sealed. The defendant appealed from that order. On appeal, the court first concluded that the appeal provisions of ORS chapter 138 did not apply because the statutory proceeding was intended to serve a rehabilitative function — the “antithesis of the original criminal conviction.” K.P., 324 Or at 6-7. Thus, the defendant in K.P. had no ability to appeal the order under chapter 138, even though she had been convicted. Moreover, her motion to seal the records did not affect the merits of the criminal proceeding, nor did it disrupt or revive the criminal proceedings. Cf. State v. Endsley, 214 Or 537, 331 P2d 338 (1958) (<HOLDING>) This case is more like K.P. than it is like
holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding that the petition was not properly denied where the trial courts stated reason for denying the petition was that the defendant was afforded a break in the criminal justice system because he received a withhold of adjudication and early termination of probation holding that untimely petition for postconviction petition divests trial court of jurisdiction holding that an appeal denying a petition for what was essentially a petition for a new trial to reopen the criminal process was not separately appealable holding that even where postconviction petitioner reserved the option to file an amended petition in his opening petition simply filing an amended petition is insufficient to request leave to file an amended petition a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition