Opinion ID: 2236587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Defendants argue as follows:

Text: The post-conviction court did not make specific finding of fact or law in its decision denying the Belated Motion to Correct Errors which raised their objections to the identification testimony and other issues. The court's failure to do so creates problems for appellate courts' review and is error. Moffett v. State, (1979) Ind. App., 398 N.E.2d 686; Love v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 57, 272 N.E.2d 456. Both Moffett and Lane rely upon Ind.R.P.C. 1, section 6, which provides: The court shall make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.    The Belated Motion to Correct Errors is a creature of Ind.R.P.C. 2 which provides in pertinent part: If the trial court finds such grounds, it shall permit the defendant to file the motion, and the motion shall then be treated for all purposes as a motion to correct error filed within the prescribed period. Thus, the Belated Motion to Correct Errors, while post conviction in nature, is governed not by Ind.R.P.C. 1, but by Ind.R. Tr.P. 59, which does not contain a directive to the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its ruling on the motion. Even if the trial court had erred, we have had no difficulty in learning from the record that the alleged errors were not preserved for review.