- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
- Date Filed: 12-30-2015
- Case #: A154928
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J.; Hadlock, J.; & Egan, J. Per Curiam.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner appealed a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief, contending that the post-conviction court erred in entering a judgment that did not comply with ORS 138.640(1), as construed in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672 (2010). At a minimum, a judgment denying post-conviction relief must (1) identify the 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 all three bases were met, the third properly through oral findings. Affirmed.