2017 ORS 138.640¹
Judgment
  • enforcement

(1) After deciding the issues raised in the proceeding, the court shall enter a judgment denying the petition or granting the appropriate relief. The judgment may include orders as provided in ORS 138.520 (Relief which court may grant). The judgment must clearly state the grounds on which the cause was determined, and whether a state or federal question was presented and decided.

(2) If the court grants the petitioner relief, the judgment is not enforceable in the petitioner’s favor until:

(a) The petitioner causes a certified copy of the judgment to be entered in the circuit court in which the petitioner’s conviction and sentence were rendered; and

(b) The petitioner serves a certified copy of the judgment on the district attorney of the county in which the petitioner’s conviction and sentence were rendered. [1959 c.636 §14; 2003 c.576 §245; 2007 c.193 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Where peti­tioner sought post-con­vic­­tion relief contending he had received invalid consecutive sen­tences and post-con­vic­­tion court dismissed peti­tion and entered order relying on grounds neither presented to court nor responsive to peti­tion, remand to Court of Appeals for considera­tion to enter proper final order was appropriate. Wilson v. Maass, 305 Or 434, 752 P2d 840 (1988)

Where docu­ment from which ap­peal was at­tempted in post-con­vic­­tion case did not make final disposi­tion of the case, it did not meet require­ments of this sec­tion and case was remanded for disposi­tion. Stelljes v. Maass, 306 Or 655, 761 P2d 925 (1988)

Judg­ment denying relief must (1) identify claims for relief and make separate rulings on each claim; (2) declare whether denial is based on peti­tioner’s failure to follow available state pro­ce­dures or to failure es­tab­lish merits of claim; and (3) make legal basis for denial apparent. Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 227 P3d 714 (2010)

Notes of Decisions

Any per­son who is convicted of a crime may seek relief under this sec­tion, whether or not he is in custody, regardless of whether his con­vic­­tion is for a felony or misdemeanor. Morasch v. State, 261 Or 299, 493 P2d 1364 (1972)

Habeas corpus is a proper method of ques­tioning the constitu­tionality of treat­ment accorded prisoners. Bekins v. Cupp, 274 Or 115, 545 P2d 861 (1976)

These sec­tions afforded plain, speedy and adequate remedy in lower courts and state Supreme Court would not exercise original habeas corpus jurisdic­tion. Sweet v. Cupp, 640 F2d 233 (1981)

Post-con­vic­­tion relief is not suspension of writ of habeas corpus; it provides different pro­ce­dure but retains all necessary substantive and procedural advantages of the writ. Atkeson v. Cupp, 68 Or App 196, 680 P2d 772 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Post-con­vic­­tion relief under these sec­tions is available to those convicted of DUII Class A traffic infrac­tions to remedy constitu­tional viola­tions. Evers v. State, 69 Or App 450, 685 P2d 1024 (1984)

Availability of post-con­vic­­tion relief to per­sons convicted under state law but not to those convicted under municipal law does not violate Article I, sec­tion 20, or equal protec­tion clause of Fourteenth Amend­ment, because per­sons convicted under municipal law do not constitute true class, and there is no discriminatory applica­tion of law. Hunter v. State of Oregon, 306 Or 529, 761 P2d 502 (1988)

Granting of delayed ap­peal authorized where necessary to rectify substantial denial of constitu­tional rights. State v. Macy, 316 Or 335, 851 P2d 579 (1993)

Federal constitu­tional principle requiring that facts that increase penalty for crime beyond statutory max­i­mum be submitted to jury does not apply retroactively to afford post-con­vic­­tion relief. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

State will retroactively apply new federal rule re­gard­ing constitu­tionality only if rule places certain kinds of con­duct beyond proscrip­tion or if procedural rule affects funda­mental fairness re­quired for accurate con­vic­­tion. Page v. Palmateer, 336 Or 379, 84 P3d 133 (2004)

Law Review Cita­tions

68 OLR 269 (1989)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 138—Conviction Relief, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors138.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2017, Chapter 138, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano138.­html (2017) (last ac­cessed Mar. 30, 2018).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.