“events occurring at the trial of petitioner may be shown by a duly authenticated transcript, record or portion thereofl,]” the legislature obviously contemplated that an entire record of the underlying court proceedings may not always be necessary to the determination of whether post-conviction relief is available. (Emphasis added.) Nonetheless, the assessments required by the statutes of a post-conviction court and a reviewing appellate court must be made in light of the totality of the circumstances that are material to the issues raised by a petitioner. Horn v. Hill, 180 Or App 139, 148, 41 P3d 1127 (2002) (citing Carias v. State of Oregon, 148 Or App 540, 543, 941 P2d 571 (1997)); see also Cunningham v. Thompson, 188 Or App 289, 296, 71 P3d 110 (2003), rev den, 337 Or 327 (2004) (<HOLDING>). In this case, petitioner contends that the
recognizing that only a claimant is entitled to the secretarys assistance in the development of the facts pertinent to the claim the benefit of the doubt and the determination whether the claim is well grounded holding that although a defendant filed a motion in limine on an evidentiary issue a failure to object to the evidence at trial waives the issue for appeal holding that a challenge to the weight of the evidence is waived for failure to present the issue first to the trial court holding that where a petitioners claim of inadequate assistance is based on trial counsels failure to adduce or controvert evidence pertaining to a particular issue an assessment of other evidence pertaining to the issue as well as any other aspects of the criminal trial that are pertinent to the issue    considered in light of the issues at trial in their entirety is the proper method for determining whether in the totality of the circumstances counsels error had the required tendency to affect the jurys verdict  citation omitted emphasis in original holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict