Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kulhavy v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 30, 2017

WILLIAM JOHN KULHAVY, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Jeri TAYLOR, Superintendent, Two Rivers Correctional Institution, Defendant-Respondent.

          Argued and submitted June 21, 2016.

         Umatilla County Circuit Court CV130697 Joseph C. Guimond, Senior Judge.

          Jason Weber argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was O'Connor Weber LLP.

          Erin K. Galli, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Garrett, Judge. [*]

         Case Summary:

         Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief. Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court's judgment did not comply with ORS 138.640(1), as construed in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or. 672, 227 P.3d 714 (2010). Defendant concedes that the post-conviction court's judgment was not Datt compliant.

         Held:

         The post-conviction court's judgment in this case failed to comply with ORS 138.640(1). Moreover, because that deficiency impaired the Court of Appeals' review function, the court did not address petitioner's other assignments of error.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [287 Or.App. 504] TOOKEY, J.

         Petitioner appeals from a judgment denying his petition for post-conviction relief, raising three assignments of error. In his third assignment of error, petitioner contends that the post-conviction court's judgment did not comply with ORS 138.640(1), as construed in Datt v. Hill. 347 Or. 672, 227 P.3d 714 (2010). Defendant concedes that the post-conviction court's judgment was not Datt compliant. We agree and accept defendant's concession. Accordingly, we reverse and remand based on that deficiency in the judgment and do not address the merits of the other assignments of error.[1]

         ORS 138.640(1) provides that a post-conviction judgment granting or denying relief "must clearly state the grounds on which the cause was determined, and whether a state or federal question was presented or decided." To comply with the statute,

"a judgment denying claims for post-conviction relief must, at a 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.