Petitioner appeals a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. On appeal, he raises three assignments of error. We reject all but one without discussion. We address only petitioner's claim that the post-conviction court's judgment does not comply with ORS 138.640(1) with respect to one of his claims for relief. Defendant concedes petitioner's
ORS 138.640(1) provides, in part, that a "judgment [denying claims for post-conviction relief] must clearly state the grounds on which the cause was determined." Interpreting that statute, the Oregon Supreme Court held:
Here, the post-conviction court's judgment does not comply with Datt. Petitioner advanced five claims for relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court's judgment sufficiently addressed each of petitioner's first four claims under Datt. However, the judgment failed to identify and make a separate ruling on petitioner's fifth claim for ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the judgment does not comply with ORS 138.640(1) as interpreted by Datt.
Because the post-conviction court's judgment in this case fails to comply with ORS 138.640(1), we reverse and remand for the court to enter a new judgment that complies with that statute with respect to petitioner's fifth claim.
Reversed and remanded as to Claim 5 for entry of judgment including findings required by ORS 138.640(1); otherwise affirmed.