Case Title: Brian W. Kinman v. State of Indiana

Citation: 

Docket Number: 20S-CR-569

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2020-09-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 20S-CR-569 
Brian Kinman, 
Appellant-Defendant, 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee-Plaintiff. 
Decided: September 28, 2020 
Appeal from the Fayette Circuit Court 
Nos. 21C01-1802-F5-131, 21C01-1906-F5-467 
The Honorable Hubert Branstetter, Jr., Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
Case No. 19A-CR-2718 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Sep 28 2020, 2:53 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-569 | September 28, 2020 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam. 
On July 3, 2019, Brian Kinman pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony 
possession of a narcotic drug and Level 6 felony residential entry. Kinman 
orally moved to withdraw his guilty plea at the October 18 sentencing 
hearing, but the trial court denied the motion and sentenced Kinman that 
day. 
On November 7, Kinman filed a pro se motion to vacate judgment and 
withdraw his plea, followed shortly thereafter by a petition to amend his 
sentence and a motion for transport. The trial court summarily denied 
these motions on November 18, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, 
finding no abuse of discretion. Kinman v. State, 149 N.E.3d 619 (Ind. Ct. 
App. 2020). 
We grant transfer, vacating the Court of Appeals opinion. See Ind. 
Appellate Rule 58(A). But we summarily affirm the portion of the Court of 
Appeals 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. See Kinman, 149 N.E.3d at 627. 
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[.]” See 149 N.E.3d at 627, 
citing I.C. § 35-35-1-4(c). 
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).  
All Justices concur.  
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 20S-CR-569 | September 28, 2020 
Page 3 of 3 
A TT O R N E Y F O R  A PP E LLA N T  
Kimberly A. Jackson 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Samuel J. Dayton 
Deputy Attorney General 
Lauren A. Jacobsen 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana