SHONHAI v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Hendricks Superior Court denied Kudzai Shonhai's petition for post-conviction relief following a contested hearing. Shonhai appeals and presents two issues for review. However, we need only address the following dispositive issue: whether the trial court erred when it failed to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in denying Shonhai's petition.

[2] We reverse and remand for findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 1(6).

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Shonhai has lived in the United States since 2006 when the United States government granted him asylum from the Republic of Zimbabwe. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 14. In 2010, the State charged Shonhai with sexual misconduct with a minor, as a Class C felony, in Hendricks County. Id. at 14-15. On May 5, 2011, Shonhai pleaded guilty to sexual battery, as a Class D felony, and the State dismissed the Class C felony sexual misconduct with a minor charge. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 17-18, 21.

[4] On February 16, 2023, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services informed Shonhai of its “Notice of Intent to Terminate Asylum Status.” Ex. Vol. p. 59. The Notice stated that Shonhai's asylum status was to be terminated due to his 2011 sexual battery conviction. Id.

[5] On August 24, 2023, Shonhai petitioned the court for post-conviction relief. The court held a contested evidentiary hearing on the petition. At the hearing, Shonhai testified that he told his attorney about his asylum status and had agreed to plead guilty based on his attorney's advice that his asylum status would not be jeopardized by the guilty plea. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 18. When asked if he would have entered the plea agreement had he known about any potential risks regarding his asylum status, Shonhai stated that “[he] would never have entered that plea.” Id.

[6] Shonhai's trial attorney stated in a deposition that he had no recollection of Shonhai having asylum status. He also did not recall having expressed any concerns about the case with respect to an asylum status. Pet.’s Ex. 1 at 5:05 to 5:27. And he did not recall advising Shonhai that the conviction would cause Shonhai to be deported. Instead, Shonhai's trial attorney testified: “that doesn't seem like something that I would have ever advised a client in that situation of. I think that would be unlikely for me to make such a statement.” Id. at 7:02 to 7:24. The attorney also recalled that, at the time of representation, he “was at least somewhat familiar with the negative ramifications of ․ any conviction or ․ even a true finding in a diversion to those who are not U.S. citizens.” Id. at 6:33 to 6:49.

[7] The court concluded the evidentiary hearing with requests for proposed findings from both parties. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 34. However, the court ultimately denied Shonhai's petition without adopting either party's proposed findings and conclusions in its order, nor did the court enter its own findings and conclusions. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 35. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Post-Conviction Rule 1(6) requires the post-conviction court to “make specific findings of fact, and conclusions of law on all issues presented, whether or not a hearing is held.” Clayton v. State, 673 N.E.2d 783, 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Post-Conviction Rule 1(6)). The trial court failed to comply with the rule when it denied Shonhai's petition without findings. This failure presents a reason for remand. Id.

[9] The State argues that we need not reverse for the court's failure to enter specific findings because “the issues are sufficiently presented for review and addressed by the parties.” Appellee's Br. at 14. In support of its position, the State cites Adcock v. State, 22 N.E.3d 720, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). But Adcock discussed Rule 1(6) on appeal from the post-conviction court's summary disposition of a petition for post-conviction relief, not an appeal following a contested evidentiary hearing. And, in any case, we think findings of fact and conclusions of law on Shonhai's petition are appropriate.

Conclusion

[10] For all of these reasons, we reverse the post-conviction court's denial of Shonhai's petition and remand with instructions that the court reconsider the record and enter a final judgment that is supported by findings of fact and conclusions of law.

[11] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

Mathias, Judge.

Foley, J., concurs. Felix, J., concurs in result without opinion.