Cabell v. State, 1279S357
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 1279S357,1279S357 |
| Parties | Jerry Alan CABELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Melanie C. Conour, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Cindy A. Ellis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of Second Degree Murder and was sentenced to an indeterminate term of not less than fifteen (15) years nor more than twenty-five (25) years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed in Cabell v. State, (1978) Ind., 372 N.E.2d 1176. Thereafter, appellant sought post-conviction relief pursuant to Indiana Rules of Procedure for Post-Conviction Remedies, Rule PC 1. His petition for relief was denied. Appellant raises two issues in this appeal. Given our disposition of the first issue presented, we decline to treat the second and remand with instructions.
The appellant first claims error in the court's failure to make specific findings of facts and conclusions of law. Although a docket entry was made showing the petition being denied and ordering the State to tender proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, no findings or conclusions were actually entered. PC 1, Sec. 6, reads in pertinent part:
Section 6. Judgment. The court shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.... This order is a final judgment. (emphasis ours)
The State argues that failure to comply with PC 1, Sec. 6, does not constitute error if no harm to the petitioner is demonstrated in a review of the record as a whole, citing Henry v. State, (1976) 253 Ind. 264, 353 N.E.2d 482, Davis v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 327, 330 N.E.2d 738. However, in both Henry, supra, and Davis, supra, the trial court had entered findings of fact which were attacked for lack of specificity. In Beard v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 270 at 271, the Court of Appeals stated in reference to PC 1, Sec. 6:
In the total absence of findings or conclusions, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to do so pursuant to PC 1, Sec. 6...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...by PCR 1, Sec. 6. Lowe v. State, (1983) Ind. 455 N.E.2d 1126; Davis v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 327, 330 N.E.2d 738; Cabell v. State, (1980) 274 Ind. 683, 414 N.E.2d 293. Nevertheless, we are not foreclosed from determining the ultimate issues where the underlying facts are not in dispute and......
-
Coker v. State
...similar circumstances we have remanded for further findings. See, e.g., Taylor v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 891; Cabell v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 683, 414 N.E.2d 293. We have also determined, however, that where the facts underlying a petitioner's claims are not in dispute and the issu......
-
Harvey v. State
...we have remanded for the entry of specific findings. See, e.g., Taylor v. State (1985), Ind., 472 N.E.2d 891; Cabell v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 683, 414 N.E.2d 293. Where, however, the facts underlying the petitioner's claims are not in dispute and the issues are sufficiently presented for r......
-
Guthrie v. State, 1-685
...and conclusions of law on all issues presented as required by Rule PC 1, Section 6. In this respect the court erred. Cabell v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 683, 414 N.E.2d 293. Neither party raises any issue concerning the court's failure to make such findings and conclusions. Remand to the trial......