- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 11-04-2015
- Case #: A154278
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, P.J., for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; & Garrett, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Soderstrom appealed a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Soderstrom made three claims for relief (Claims 1, 2, and 3), and on appeal assigned error to the post-conviction court’s denial of relief as to Claim 1, and the court’s inadequate entrance of judgment in the post-conviction relief form as to Claims 2 and 3 as required by ORS 138.640 and Datt v. Hill, 347 Or. 672, 227 P.3d 724 (2010). In order to satisfy the requirements articulated in ORS 138.640 and Datt, a judgment in a post-conviction relief proceeding must clearly state the grounds on which the matter was decided. A “clear statement” must (1) identify the claims on which a petitioner asked for relief and make a separate ruling on each claim, (2) state whether each claim for relief is procedurally or legally insufficient, and (3) make apparent the legal basis for denial of relief by identifying each element the court determines a petitioner did not meet. The Court rejected Soderstrom’s argument as to Claim 1, but agreed that the form of judgment the post-conviction court entered as to Claims 2 and 3 did not meet the requirements of ORS 138.640 and Datt. Reversed and remanded as to Claims 2 and 3 for entry of judgment including the findings required by ORS 138.640; otherwise affirmed.