BREWER, C. J.
In this post-conviction relief action, petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences for kidnapping in the first degree and felon in possession of a firearm in Coos County Circuit Court Case Number 02CR-2061 (the underlying case). In a single assignment of error on appeal, petitioner asserts that the post-conviction court erred in denying his motion to enforce a settlement agreement placed on the record in open court that would have made his sentence for felon in possession of a firearm in the underlying case concurrent with his sentence for felon in possession of a firearm in Coos County Circuit Court Case Number 03CR-1260 (the second case). We reverse and remand.
Although the question whether an enforceable contract exists ultimately is one of law, the underlying issue--whether the parties had a "meeting of the minds"--is one of fact, which we review for any evidence in the record to support the trial court's express or implied findings. Martin v. Comcast of California, 209 Or App 82, 97, 146 P3d 380 (2006); Waverly Const. Co. v. Gold Invest. Co., 60 Or App 101, 103 n 1, 652 P2d 880 (1982). In his petition for post-conviction relief in this case, petitioner challenged his convictions and sentences in the underlying case, in which the sentencing court had imposed consecutive prison sentences, totaling 133 months, on the first-degree kidnapping and felon in possession of a firearm counts. Petitioner then filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which he asserted that his trial counsel in the underlying case had performed inadequately by failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the kidnapping charge. At a hearing on petitioner's motion, defendant's counsel indicated tothe post-conviction court that the parties were attempting to settle the case based on her perception that defendant was exposed to legal risk on the kidnapping-related post-conviction claim. Because the parties assured the post-conviction court that they would continue their settlement negotiations, the court postponed the summary judgment hearing until April 23, and it provisionally scheduled a trial on the merits of petitioner's claims for the same day.
On April 23, shortly before the hearing was scheduled to commence, the parties announced that they had reached an agreement to settle this case. The post-conviction court directed counsel to place the terms of the settlement on the record, and the following colloquy ensued:
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: I can put that on the record.
"THE COURT: Okay. Would you do that, please?
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: [Petitioner's counsel] previously filed a [partial] motion for summary judgment, and since that time we've been discussing this case. And it was the State's position that this case did carry weight, based on [petitioner's] summary judgment. And then the trial attorney failed to move for a judgment of acquittal, as it related to the kidnapping, and we did feel that there was a severe risk in losing that issue and that [petitioner' counsel] had carried the weight (phonetic), for lack of a better phrase, including that case.
"I did get approval from the District Attorney who originally tried this case to make an offer for a kidnapping in the second degree and run the felon in possession concurrent, and I'll let [petitioner's counsel] put on the record what his client's decided in that regard.
"THE COURT: Well, okay. What was the offer? Let's put it that way.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Kidnapping in the second degree.
"THE COURT: And it changed to kidnapping.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: And the felon in possession runs concurrent.
"THE COURT: Okay.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: And we would do the judgment--judgment would be submitted to Your Honor.
"THE COURT: Okay. Okay.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: We don't--he doesn't have to go back to the original county and vacate the plea (phonetic)--
"THE COURT: No.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: We can just do an amended judgment here, and I can [draw up] all the paperwork (unintelligible).
"THE COURT: [Petitioner's counsel].
"[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL]: I believe that's accurate. Just to be clear and--just a second. Let me get my file because I want to be sure that we have the case numbers on the record.
"Okay. And [defendant's counsel] can correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is [petitioner], he actually--he had another felon in possession charge in this case, and then there was a separate case that was where he also had a felon in possession charge, and that was Case Number 03CR-1260. This case was number--sorry--02CR-2061. And my understanding of the offer was that both cases would be run concurrent for a total sentence of 70 months prison. Is that correct?
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Yes. Yeah. That was--
"[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL]: Okay. Okay. And so that is--he is accepting that offer, then.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Okay.
"THE COURT: Okay. There's a lot of numbers that were stated by [petitioner's counsel], and they don't correspond to anything that I have.
"[PETITIONER'S COUNSEL]: Okay. I can--let me say it one more time and hopefully this will be more clear. Okay, this post-conviction case, [petitioner] is challenging his convictions in Coos County Circuit Court Case Number 02CR-2061. In that case he was convicted of count one, kidnapping in the first degree, which was merged with count five, conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree. And then he was also convicted of count nine, felon in possession of a firearm. The stipulation of the parties will be that [petitioner's] conviction on count one, which was merged with count five, kidnapping in the first degree, will be reduced to the charge of kidnapping in the second degree and that [petitioner's] sentence, which originally was 115 months on the kidnapping in the first degree, will be reduced to 70 months, which is a Measure 11 mandatory minimum for kidnapping in the second degree, and that that will be run concurrent with his sentence for a felon in possession on count nine of that same case.
"And then, [petitioner] has a second case, which is Coos County Circuit Court Case Number 03CR-1260, where he was also convicted of one count of felon in possession of a firearm, and that would be run concurrent to this 70-month sentence in Coos County Case Number 02CR-2061. So hopefully, that's clear for the record.
"THE COURT: Do you agree with that?
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Yes.
"THE COURT: Okay. And, [defendant's counsel], you will prepare the amended judgments and send them to [petitioner's counsel] and send them to me (phonetic)?
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Of course. Yeah, we can actually send them just to Umatilla County, for Judge Brauer's signature unless we can send them to you (phonetic). I'm not sure how--
"THE COURT: No, that's fine.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]:--you want us to do that. But, yeah, that's our agreement and I'll definitely get the paperwork to [petitioner's counsel].
"THE COURT: Some judge will sign it.
"[DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL]: Yes.
"THE COURT: Probably Judge Brauer. Okay, fine. Thank you very much."
Ultimately, defendant's counsel did not prepare an amended judgment, and petitioner filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement that was placed on the record on April 23. In support of the motion, petitioner's counsel filed a sworn declaration that averred, in pertinent part, as follows:
"Before the April 23, 2009 hearing in this case, [defendant's counsel] called me and made a settlement proposal. The proposal was that petitioner's conviction for Kidnapping I would be reduced to Kidnapping II with a 70-month sentence, concurrent to his sentence for Felon in Possession. I conveyed this settlement proposal to [petitioner] and he accepted it.
"Before we began the April 23, 2009, hearing in this case, I asked [defendant's counsel] to clarify that the agreement was that the 70-month sentence for Kidnapping II would run concurrent to the sentence in [petitioner's] Felon in Possession case. She said that it would, and I said that, in that case, [petitioner] accepted the settlement proposal.
"I then placed the settlement agreement on the record. The terms of that agreement were that petitioner's conviction of Kidnapping in the First Degree [in the underlying case] would be reduced to the lesser-included crime of Kidnapping in the Second Degree, and the sentence on [that count] would be modified to a sentence of 70 months prison and 3 years post-prison supervision, to be served concurrently with the sentence for Felon in Possession of a Firearm [in the underlying case], and the sentence for Felon in Possession of a Firearm [in the other case]. [Defendant's counsel] indicated that I had accurately stated the terms of the settlement agreement, and the court directed the parties to submit a stipulated judgment."
In a written response to petitioner's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, defendant's counsel stated:
"As counsel for the defendant, I contacted [petitioner's counsel] in response to his request to settle this case. We discussed settlement of the Kidnapping in the First Degree charge in [the underlying case]. Our agreement also entailed that the Felon in Possession conviction would beconcurrent to the Kidnapping in the Second Degree conviction. At no point during our discussions, either via email or phone,
...
