Asbill v. Angelozzi

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 12-09-2015
  • Case #: A155154
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Egan, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 138.640(1), if a judgment document denying post-conviction relief is sufficient even where it does not explicitly state the court’s findings underlying the reasons for denying relief, but makes reference to oral findings on the record which provide a sufficient basis for denying relief.

Petitioner appealed the trial court’s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the trial court erred in rejecting his claim for inadequate assistance of counsel, and further erred in the form of judgment entered in the decision. The Court addressed only the form of the judgment entered by the post-conviction court. Petitioner argued that the judgment was deficient because it did not explicitly identify which elements of Petitioner’s claim for ineffective counsel were deficient. The State responded that the oral findings on the record sufficiently identified the deficiencies in Petitioner’s claim, and the actual judgment document was not deficient because it incorporated the findings with reference to the oral findings on the record. The Court reviewed the applicable law and precedent, and held that a post-conviction court’s judgment document denying relief is sufficient if it makes reference to oral findings on the record, and the findings on the record provide sufficient basis for denial of relief. Affirmed.

Advanced Search