Bradford v. Premo

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 08-02-2017
  • Case #: A154300
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, C.J. for the Court; Armstrong P.J.; & Egan J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under ORS 138.640(1), the “clear statement rule” requires judgments denying relief in post-conviction cases 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.” Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010).

Petitioner appealed the post-conviction court’s judgement in favor of the Defendant-Superintendent which denied Petitioner’s claim for post-conviction relief. Petitioner assigned error to the post-conviction court’s failure to comply with the three requirements of the clear statement rule, ORS 138.640(1). On appeal, the Petitioner argued the post-conviction court’s judgment failed to make apparent the legal bases for denying relief on petitioner’s second and third claims of relief. Under ORS 138.640(1), the “clear statement rule” requires judgments denying relief in post-conviction cases 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.” Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010). Under ORS 138.640(1), “[t]he judgment must clearly state the grounds on which the cause was determined, and whether a state or federal question was presented and decided.” The Court of Appeals held that the post-conviction court’s decision did not comply with the third requirement of ORS 138.640(1) because it failed to address the post-conviction court’s reasons for denying relief on the prosecutorial misconduct claims. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search