Vicente v. Nooth

In order to comply with ORS 138.640(1), a judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at minimum, (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.

Petitioner appealed a judgment denying several of his claims for post-conviction relief. The trial court imposed a sentence that, unlike the one contemplated in Petitioner's plea agreement, did not include the possibility of parole. Later, Petitioner entered five claims for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court entered a judgment allowing relief “only to the extent of correcting error in the judgment to get petitioner the sentence he should have received.” The judgment did not include any reference to the denial of Petitioner’s several other claims for post-conviction relief. On appeal, Petitioner argued the post-conviction judgment did not comply with ORS 138.640(1), which requires such a judgment to “clearly state the grounds on which the cause was determined.” Under Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010), ORS 138.640(1) imposes three requirements on a judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief: the judgment 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. Because the post-conviction judgment did not meet the second and third requirements, the Court held the judgment did not comply with ORS 138.640(1). Reversed and remanded.