Fuller v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Fuller v. State

505 S.W.2d 755, 256 Ark. 133, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1398

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 4, 1974

DocketCR 73-143

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 505 S.W.2d 755 (Fuller v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. State, 505 S.W.2d 755, 256 Ark. 133, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1398 (Ark. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK HÓLT, Justice.

Appellant was sentenced in 1971 to life imprisonment in the State Department of Correction when he pleaded guilty to a charge of first degree murder after a waiver of the death penalty. Subsequently, appellant sought post-conviction relief pursuant to our Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The petition was denied after an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal we first consider appellant’s contention, through his court appointed counsel, that the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 1 (E). The pertinent provision of that section provides:

***The court shall determine the issues and make written findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.***

This provision is mandatory. Orman v. Bishop, Supt. State Prison, 243 Ark. 609, 420 S.W. 2d 908 (1967) and McIntyre v. State, 242 Ark. 229, 412 S.W. 2d 826 (1967). Therefore, it is necessary to remand the cause for compliance with this requirement.

Until we have the benefit of the trial court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law, we do not reach a determination of appellant’s other contention for reversal.

Remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FRANK HÓLT, Justice.

Appellant was sentenced in 1971 to life imprisonment in the State Department of Correction when he pleaded guilty to a charge of first degree murder after a waiver of the death penalty. Subsequently, appellant sought post-conviction relief pursuant to our Criminal Procedure Rule 1. The petition was denied after an eviden-tiary hearing. On appeal we first consider appellant’s contention, through his court appointed counsel, that the trial court erred in failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Rule 1 (E). The pertinent provision of that section provides:

***The court shall determine the issues and make written findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect thereto.***

This provision is mandatory. Orman v. Bishop, Supt. State Prison, 243 Ark. 609, 420 S.W. 2d 908 (1967) and McIntyre v. State, 242 Ark. 229, 412 S.W. 2d 826 (1967). Therefore, it is necessary to remand the cause for compliance with this requirement.

Until we have the benefit of the trial court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law, we do not reach a determination of appellant’s other contention for reversal.

Remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

505 S.W.2d 755, 256 Ark. 133, 1974 Ark. LEXIS 1398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-state-ark-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack