Court Opinion

ID: 9656867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:05:01.822739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:06.296499
License: Public Domain

JIM HANNAH, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. The court remands this case to the trial court to make written factual findings and legal conclusions as to issues raised by Echols in his Rule 37 petition. While I agree that the trial court must make specific written findings of fact, and must also expressly state the conclusions of law relating to each issue raised in the petition, I do not agree that the trial court in this case failed to meet this burden on each and every issue raised by Echols. Specifically, the trial court made specific findings and conclusions of law on the assertion the trial judge should have recused because he presided over the criminal trial, on the issue of the bite marks as new evidence, and on the issue of a biased jury. The trial court should not have to revisit these issues.