Case Name: Ozie WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold J. CARDWELL, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1974-02-26
Citations: 491 F.2d 1259
Docket Number: No. 73-1627
Parties: Ozie WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold J. CARDWELL, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before BROWNING, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 491
Pages: 1259–1259

Head Matter:
Ozie WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold J. CARDWELL, Warden, Arizona State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 73-1627.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 26, 1974.
B. Michael Dann (argued), Treon, Warnicke & Dann, Phoenix, Ariz., for petitioner-appellant.
Thomas A. Jacobs (argued), Gary. K. Nelson, Peter M. Van- Orman, Ronald L. Crismon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for respondent-appellee.
Before BROWNING, CARTER and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus claiming his guilty plea to a first-degree burglary charge in the Arizona courts was based on an erroneous, but reasonable, belief that he would receive a sentence of three to five years. The sentence actually imposed was 10 to 15 years. After two evidentiary hearings, the district court denied the writ, stating simply that the petition was "without merit," without entering more specific findings of fact or conclusions of law.
Findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the grounds of decision should have been entered. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 2573. They serve the dual function of informing the petitioner why his petition is being denied and facilitating appellate review. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 730-731, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948) (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.).
Petitioner does not contend, however, that failure to enter such findings and conclusions is a sufficient ground for reversal in the circumstances of this case. Nor does petitioner contend that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard in resolving the factual issues and dismissing the writ. Petitioner's sole contention is that the factual determination underlying the dismissal was clearly erroneous. We have read the record and we are satisfied that the dismissal was supported by substantial evidence.
Affirmed.