Altice, J.
David Earl Ison, pro se, appeals the denial of his post-conviction relief (PCR) petition. We find the following issue dispositive: Did the post-conviction court err in declining to address Ison’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which incorporated a challenge to the voluntariness of his plea?
We remand.
On September 25, 2011, Roy Napier, Angela Napier, Melissa Napier, Jacob Napier, and Henry Smith were murdered in Franklin County. Shortly thereafter, Ison became a suspect and blood and DNA evidence were recovered from his home, as well as two firearms that had been used in the shootings. At the time of the killings, Ison was on probation for unrelated convictions on ten counts of burglary. In sum, Ison had twenty prior felony convictions.
The State charged Ison with five counts of murder (Counts I through V) on October 7, 2011. … Thereafter, Prosecutor Wilhelm spoke with Ison’s trial counsel, Hubert Branstetter (Attorney Branstetter), regarding the possibility of a plea agreement in which Ison would plead guilty to life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) to avoid the death penalty. A document was prepared by Prosecutor Wilhelm and presented to Ison by Attorney Branstetter. Ison signed the document, agreeing to LWOP. This document, which Ison believed to be a plea agreement, was never filed with the trial court.
On February 3, 2012, the State filed an amended information adding an LWOP count (Count VI). The trial court held an initial hearing regarding Count VI on March 1, 2012, which transformed into a guilty plea hearing when Ison pled guilty to Count VI and changed his plea to guilty with regard to Counts I though V. … At the sentencing hearing on March 14, 2012, the trial court sentenced Ison to LWOP.
Ison, pro se, filed his original PCR petition on June 26, 2014. Thereafter, on October 19, 2015, Ison filed a motion to amend his PCR petition, alleging for the first time that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. …
Ison’s post-conviction hearing commenced on June 29, 2016. … Ison … emphasized that his primary claims were ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness of his plea. …
On July 1, 2016, the post-conviction court issued its order denying Ison’s PCR petition. In the order, the court expressly considered only the three grounds for relief raised in Ison’s original petition filed in 2014. These grounds did not include ineffective assistance of counsel or the related claim regarding his guilty plea.
Ison has abandoned several dubious claims that he asserted below and focuses his appeal on his interconnected claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and involuntariness of his guilty plea. In general, Ison asserts that he never waived his Boykin rights, the plea agreement that he signed was not presented to the court, his trial counsel misled him and did not properly advise him regarding the plea, and counsel did not file a written request to withdraw the plea upon Ison’s request. …
….
At the post-conviction hearing held on June 29, 2016, Ison presented his case and focused on the issues of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntariness of his guilty plea, which were first alleged in the 2015 Amendment. In addition to the 2015 Amendment, the court acknowledged at the hearing that it had a lengthy document filed by Ison on April 14, 2016,5 which Ison claimed was another amendment raising additional issues.
In its brief order issued two days after the post-conviction hearing, the court indicated for the first time that it would not consider any of Ison’s claims raised in filings made after the original PCR petition filed in 2014. Without any explanation, the court concluded that the only petition properly before it was the original petition. This was erroneous.
On remand, we direct the post-conviction court to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to Ison’s claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and involuntariness of his guilty plea. See State v. Cozart, 897 N.E.2d 478, 484 (Ind. 2008) (remanding for findings and conclusions on claims not addressed by the post-conviction court).
Remanded with instructions.
Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.