Himebaugh v. Taylor

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 03-16-2016
  • Case #: A157041
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J.; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 138.640(1) and Datt v. Hill, a post-conviction judgment to deny relief must (1) identify the claims for relief the court considered and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare for each claim whether the denial is based on 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.

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying post-conviction relief, asserting the court failed to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640(1) and Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672 (2010). On appeal, Respondent argued the error was unpreserved because Petitioner could have objected to the court’s oral ruling, and also that the judgment complied with ORS 138.640(1) because the judgment implicitly incorporated the court’s oral ruling. The Court held that because nothing suggested the court intended its oral remarks to comprise the entire judgment that would alert Petitioner the written judgment would fail to comply with Datt, and the record did not indicate the judgment was signed in front of Petitioner or what the process was for Petitioner to review the judgment, it was not persuaded the judgment complied with ORS 138.640(1) and the Datt requirements. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment including the findings required by ORS 138.640(1).

Advanced Search