Manley v. State

IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
MANLEY, Kenneth S., ) Court of Appeals
appellant, ) cause no. 46A03-0210-PC-351
v. )
) Supreme Court
STATE OF INDIANA, ) cause no. 46S03-0305-PC-212
appellee. )
PUBLISHED ORDER
Kenneth S. Manley was convicted and sentenced on a charge of
aggravated battery, a class B felony. The conviction was affirmed on
direct appeal in an unpublished memorandum decision. Manley v. State, 752
N.E.2d 669 (Table, Ind. Ct. App., July 30, 2001). Manley was later
denied post-conviction relief and this appeal ensued. The Court of Appeals
affirmed in an unpublished memorandum decision. Manley v. State, 783
N.E.2d 811 (Table, Ind. Ct. App., February 7, 2003). Manley has filed a
petition seeking transfer of jurisdiction to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The record shows that Manley filed a pro se petition for post-
conviction relief on May 20, 2002. He also requested representation by the
State Public Defender. The State Public Defender received a copy of
Manley’s post-conviction petition on May 28, and mailed an appearance to
the post-conviction court on June 4, 2002.
Meanwhile, however, the Prosecutor filed an answer to the pro se
petition for post-conviction relief on May 31, 2002. The post-conviction
court entered judgment on the petition that same day. The full text of the
judgment follows: “Upon review of State of Indiana’s Answer to Defendant’s
Post-Conviction Relief Petition, Defendant’s Petition is hereby denied.”
The post-conviction court denied a motion to correct error filed by the
State Public Defender on Manley’s behalf.
Post-Conviction Rule 1(4)(f) states: “If the State Public Defender
has filed an appearance, the State Public Defender shall have sixty (60)
days to respond to the State’s answer to the petition filed pursuant to
Rule PC 1(4)(a). If the pleadings conclusively show that petitioner is
entitled to no relief, the court may deny the petition without further
proceedings.” The pleadings referred to in Rule 1(4)(f) include the
response of the State Public Defender. The post-conviction court erred in
denying the petition for post-conviction relief without allowing the State
Public Defender sixty days to file a response, as required by rule.
Post-Conviction Rule 1(6) states, in pertinent part, “The court shall
make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues
presented, whether or not a hearing is held.” The post-conviction court
erred in denying the petition for post-conviction relief without making
specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required by rule.
On appeal, Manley also asserts the post-conviction court erred in
denying his petition without conducting a hearing. See Ind. Post-
Conviction Rule 1(4)(g). The lack of findings, conclusions of law, and
response from the State Public Defender make meaningful appellate review of
this issue impossible.
In accordance with Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), we grant transfer of
jurisdiction, vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and remand the
case to the post-conviction court for proceedings consistent with this
order.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to the Hon. Walter
P. Chapala, Judge of the LaPorte Superior Court; to the Hon. Sanford M.
Brook, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals; to Steve Lancaster, Court of
Appeals Administrator; to Janet Roberts Blue, Commissioner of the Court of
Appeals; to the Indiana Attorney General; to the State Public Defender; and
to all counsel of record.
Done at Indianapolis, Indiana this 22nd day of May, 2003.
/s/ Randall T. Shepard
Chief Justice of Indiana
All Justices concur.