Justices uphold plea agreement but remand for new trial court order

The Indiana Supreme Court on Monday affirmed lower court rulings upholding a man’s challenged plea agreement but remanded for the entry of trial court findings and conclusions.

After pleading guilty in July 2019 to Level 5 felony possession of narcotic drug and Level 6 felony residential entry, Brian Kinman tried to orally withdraw from his guilty plea at his October 2019 sentencing hearing. There, Kinman pointed to the language in the plea agreement stating that his habitual offender status would be served “consecutive to” the other offenses. The Fayette Circuit Court, however, denied his motion and sentenced Kinman the same day.

The following month, Kinman filed a pro se motion to vacate judgment and withdraw his plea, followed by a petition to amend his sentence and a motion for transport. The trial court summarily denied those motions and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. The lower appellate court did agree with Kinman that the state’s language in the plea agreement was incorrect but still ultimately concluded that Kinman did not suffer “a manifest injustice.”

Granting transfer on Monday, the state justices affirmed the portion of the COA’s opinion finding that Kinman’s oral motion to withdraw his guilty plea was procedurally defective, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying it.

“We also agree with the Court of Appeals that because Kinman’s post-sentencing motion to vacate the judgment and withdraw the guilty plea was written and verified, as required by Ind. Code section 35-35-1-4(b), it is governed by Indiana’s Post-Conviction Rules and ‘shall be treated by the court as a petition for postconviction relief[.],’” the high court wrote in a per curiam order.

“Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6) provides that the trial court ‘shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.’ However, the trial court failed to include in its summary order any findings or conclusions on the issues Kinman raised in his de facto petition for post-conviction relief. We therefore remand this matter for entry of a revised order that complies with Indiana’s Post-Conviction Rules, including Rule 1(6),” the justices concluded.