Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.640 (2026)

Judgment; enforcement

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

138.640 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. 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

Cited in 52 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Datt v. Hill, 227 P.3d 714 (Or. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Datt v. Hill, 227 P.3d 714 (Or. 2010). · cites it 24× “The majority reasoned that ORS 138.640(1) was intended to require post-conviction trial courts to make findings sufficient to facilitate appellate review and that, as to one of petitioner’s claims, but not another, the terse explanation “failure of proof’ did not meet that…”

Fisher v. Angelozzi, 398 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” On appeal, in his first assignment of error, petitioner challenges the denial of his Brady violation claim, and, in his second assignment of error, he challenges the court’s denial of his claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to…”

Soderstrom v. Premo, 360 P.3d 1272 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “1 He assigns error to the post-conviction court’s failure to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640(1), 2 as construed by the Oregon Supreme Court in Datt v.”

Walker v. State, 302 P.3d 469 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 7× “Petitioner also asserts that the judgment denying post-conviction relief does not comply with ORS 138.640 (1) because it does not make the findings required by that statute, as interpreted in Datt v.”

Whipple v. Hill, 120 P.3d 1251 (Or. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “620 and ORS 138.640. Because error is not apparent on the face of the record, ORAP 5.”

Himebaugh v. Taylor, 369 P.3d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 10× “His sole assignment of error asserts that the post-conviction court failed to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640(1), 1 as construed in Datt v.”

Asbill v. Angelozzi, 365 P.3d 587 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “In his fifth assignment of error on appeal, petitioner asserts that the judgment “does not comply with ORS 138.640(1),” as the Supreme Court explained that statute in Datt v.”

Gonzales v. Taylor, 362 P.3d 896 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “He also assigns error to the post-conviction court’s failure to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640 (l), 1 as construed by the Oregon Supreme Court in Datt v.”

Datt v. Hill, 188 P.3d 384 (Or. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 42× “Our resolution of petitioner's fourth assignment of error, which is that the court erred in failing to enter a judgment that complied with ORS 138.640, leads us to reverse and remand the judgment on the first of two claims that petitioner pursues on appeal.”

Myers v. Brockamp, 353 P.3d 1 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 6× “She first assigns error to the court’s denial of her claim alleging that the criminal trial court judge coerced her into waiving her right to a jury trial, and additionally argues that the judgment fails to comply with ORS 138.640(1), as construed in Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672,…”

Breece v. Amsberry, 381 P.3d 1086 (Umatilla Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). · cites it 2× “ORS 138.640(1) provides: “After deciding the issues raised in the proceeding, the court shall enter a judgment denying the petition or granting the appropriate relief.”

Dudrov v. State, 361 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× ““ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.”

Show all 52 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.640(1) — 32 cases

Datt v. Hill, 227 P.3d 714 (Or. 2010). “The majority reasoned that ORS 138.640(1) was intended to require post-conviction trial courts to make findings sufficient to facilitate appellate review and that, as to one of petitioner’s claims, but not another, the terse explanation “failure of proof’ did not meet that…”

Fisher v. Angelozzi, 398 P.3d 367 (Or. Ct. App. 2017). “” On appeal, in his first assignment of error, petitioner challenges the denial of his Brady violation claim, and, in his second assignment of error, he challenges the court’s denial of his claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s failure to…”

Soderstrom v. Premo, 360 P.3d 1272 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). “1 He assigns error to the post-conviction court’s failure to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640(1), 2 as construed by the Oregon Supreme Court in Datt v.”

Walker v. State, 302 P.3d 469 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “Petitioner also asserts that the judgment denying post-conviction relief does not comply with ORS 138.640 (1) because it does not make the findings required by that statute, as interpreted in Datt v.”

Himebaugh v. Taylor, 369 P.3d 446 (Or. Ct. App. 2016). “His sole assignment of error asserts that the post-conviction court failed to enter judgment in the form required by ORS 138.640(1), 1 as construed in Datt v.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.640(2) — 1 case

Abbott v. DeKalb, 190 P.3d 413 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 138.640(l) — 4 cases

Breece v. Amsberry, 381 P.3d 1086 (Umatilla Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R. 2016). “ORS 138.640(1) provides: “After deciding the issues raised in the proceeding, the court shall enter a judgment denying the petition or granting the appropriate relief.”

Dudrov v. State, 361 P.3d 647 (Or. Ct. App. 2015). ““ORS 138.640(1) imposes a clear-statement rule on judgments in post-conviction proceedings.”

Bradford v. Premo, 402 P.3d 728 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.