On the merits, petitioner argues that the third judgment does not comply with ORS 138.640 because the post-conviction court did not address orally all of petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the third judgment makes no separate findings and conclusions other than stating that the findings were made "on the record." The Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Owens v. Cupp, 300 Or 158, 160, 707 P2d 1225 (1985). There, the post-conviction court had disposed of two claims resulting in modification of the petitioner's sentence but had not disposed of a third claim that, if granted, would have resulted in a reversal of conviction.

Even absent an objection, the post-conviction court is "not relieved of its statutory responsibility under ORS 138.640 to state the grounds upon which the cause was determined" and dispose of all claims. Leahy v. Hill, 219 Or.App. 592, 596, 185 P.3d 464 (2008) (citing Owens v. Cupp, 300 Or. 158, 161, 707 P.2d 1225 (1985)). We will correct the error in this case in the interests of judicial efficiency and accuracy.