DocketNumber: C.A. Case No. 17743. T.C. Case No. 98 CR 1673.
Judges: WOLFF, J.
Filed Date: 12/23/1999
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In 1998, pursuant to a plea bargain, Tolliver pled guilty to aggravated robbery with a firearm specification in exchange for which the state dropped a charge for possession of crack cocaine. Tolliver was sentenced to five years of imprisonment on the aggravated robbery charge and to three years of actual incarceration on the firearm specification, with the terms to be served consecutively. He did not appeal.
On April 1, 1999, Tolliver filed a pro se Petition to Vacate or Set Aside Sentence. The petition alleged that Tolliver had been coerced by the trial judge and his attorney into pleading guilty because the trial court had threatened a harsher sentence if he went to trial. The petition further alleged that Tolliver had been denied the effective assistance of counsel because of his attorney's participation in conveying the judge's "threats" about sentencing and because counsel had advised him to plead guilty although the primary evidence against him could have been suppressed. In support of his petition, Tolliver attached a letter written to him by his attorney prior to his plea, his own affidavit, and several pages from a transcript of the suppression hearing. On April 7, 1999, before the state had filed a response, the trial court dismissed the petition.
Tolliver raises five assignments of error on appeal. The first assignment addresses, inter alia, the adequacy of the trial court's findings of fact. Because we find that the trial court issued inadequate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to its dismissal of the petition, we are not in a position to and will not address Tolliver's other arguments at this time.
R.C.
The trial court's judgment entry dismissing Tolliver's petition does not contain a clear, specific, and complete discussion of the trial court's reasons for the dismissal. With respect to the alleged coercion of the guilty plea by the judge and Tolliver's attorney, the judgment simply stated that "[t]he conduct of the trial Judge in his negotiations with Defendant's attorney and the subsequent trial strategies taken by Defendant's attorney are the responsibility of Defendant's attorney." Regarding the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the court summarily concluded that there was no genuine issue as to whether counsel's performance had fallen below an objective standard of reasonableness.
In our view, the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law did not comport with R.C.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and this matter will be remanded for more explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In addition to its brief, the state filed with this court a motion to strike from the record the pages of transcript attached to Tolliver's petition on the ground that the transcript in question is not part of the record in this case. We will overrule the motion to strike. The transcript pages are from the hearing on Tolliver's motion to suppress and are "documenting evidence in support of the claim for relief." R.C.
GRADY, P.J. and YOUNG, J., concur.
Copies mailed to:
Cheryl A. Ross
Kevin D. Tolliver
Hon. John P. Petzold