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. )
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an unpublished memorandum decision.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 The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished memorandum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 Manleys post-conviction petition
on May 28, and mailed an appearance to the post-conviction court on June
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 Indianas Answer to Defendants Post-Conviction Relief Petition, Defendants
Petition is hereby denied. The post-conviction court denied a motion to correct
error filed by the State Public Defender on Manleys 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 States 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.