- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 06-17-2015
- Case #: A151966
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; DeVore, J.; & Garrett, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed a judgment denying her petition for post-conviction relief, assigning error to the criminal court's proceedings, as well as the post-conviction court's form of judgment. On review, the Court immediately turned to petitioner's second assignment of error, and determined that the post-conviction court's judgment did not comply with ORS 138.640(1) because the judgment failed to comply with the three-prong test elicited in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 676 (2010). The Datt test requires that a judgment by the post-conviction court denying relief to petitioner: (1) identify the petitioner's claims for relief that the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare, with regard to each claim, whether the denial is based on a petitioner's failure to utilize or follow available state procedures or a failure to establish the merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent. The Court held that if the post-conviction court fails to reach any of the three prongs of the Datt test, then the resulting judgment is legally insufficient. Remanded to the post-conviction court for further proceedings.