Fanagyon v. State of Oregon

"[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 merits of the claim; and (3) make the legal bases for denial of relief apparent." Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010)

Petitioner’s post-conviction relief petition was denied. On appeal, Petitioner argued that (1) his trial counsel insufficiently informed him about the immigration repercussions of a guilty plea; and (2) the post-conviction court erred by not discussing in writing Petitioner’s grievances against counsel for representation in probation proceedings. The Superintendent acknowledged that the latter error invalidated the judgment under ORS 138.640(1), but contended that Petitioner’s counsel acted reasonably. Under ORS 138.640(1), a judgment denying post-conviction relief must state the claims, whether denial is for procedural or substantive reasons, and the “legal bases for denial.” See Datt v. Hill, 347 Or 672, 685 (2010). The Court accepted the Superintendent's concession of error and held that the post-conviction court’s judgment was invalid as to Petitioner’s probation proceedings grievances, but not with regard to whether counsel insufficiently advised Petitioner. The Court found that counsel acted reasonably by inquiring as to Petitioner’s immigration status at which point counsel was misled that Petitioner was a US citizen. Nevertheless, counsel told Petitioner a guilty plea may “have immigration consequences.” Here, counsel was undoubtedly within the bounds of reasonableness because Petitioner stated to counsel that he was a US citizen. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.