dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, allowing the State to ignore its obligation to respond in a timely fashion, to obtain an enlargement of time in which to respond, or to demonstrate excusable neglect is patently unfair. In view of the State’s proce*1182dural default, I would vacate the judgment and remand for the entry of an order granting Wellman credit toward his sentence for pretrial detention time served.
The majority rationalizes disregarding the State’s default on the basis that post-conviction review petitions are often filed pro se, and often must be amended for cognizable grounds for relief to be properly alleged and all legitimate grounds stated. I fail to see what that rationale has to do with the facts of this case. Wellman’s pro se petition for post-conviction review alleged a violation of the plea bargain, which he claimed included a provision for credit for all jail time served. That allegation is a cognizable, properly stated ground for post-conviction relief. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971).
Subsequently, through counsel, Well-man filed an amended petition. Even after he had filed an amended petition prepared by an attorney, however, the State did not answer within the 20-day deadline imposed by M.R.Crim.P. 70(c), nor did it move for an enlargement of time pursuant to M.R. Crim.P. 71 and 45(b) within the 20-day period.
Wellman moved for a judgment based on the State’s default, pursuant to M.R. Crim.P. 57(a).1 Only then did the State move for additional time to answer the petition. The court’s order granting the State’s motion made no finding of excusable neglect as required by M.R.Crim.P. 45(b) and 71. That order — not Wellman’s motion for a default judgment, which was never ruled upon — is the subject of Well-man’s cross-appeal. He contends the court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion for additional time to file a response to the petition, because the State failed to demonstrate, and the court did not find, any excusable neglect. I agree.
Although the court’s decision as to whether excusable neglect has been shown is reviewable only for abuse of discretion, our standard for excusable neglect has heretofore been extremely strict, in criminal as in civil cases. State v. Williams, 510 A.2d 537 (Me.1986); State v. One 1977 Blue Ford Pick-Up Truck, 447 A.2d 1226, 1229 (Me.1982). Moreover, a claim of excusable neglect requires some factual showing. Bare representations of counsel to the court are inadequate factual support where the fact is contested. Cf. One 1977 Blue Ford Pick-Up Truck, 447 A.2d at 1230 n. 7 (factual representations stipulated to by both attorneys).
The court’s order did not even mention excusable neglect. Nor did the court find any facts constituting excusable neglect. No affidavit or other factual showing supported such a claim. Although we generally presume that the Superior Court made all findings of fact necessary to its order, the record in this case provided no basis upon which the court could have found excusable neglect. The majority intimates that the State’s bare allegation, after the fact, that it was awaiting the preparation of a transcript excuses not only its failure to file a timely response but also its failure to file a timely motion for enlargement of time in which to respond. I cannot agree. I fear that the majority, without saying so, is overthrowing our existing standard for excusable neglect. See One 1977 Blue Ford Pick-Up Truck, 447 A.2d at 1229.
The State further contends, and the majority apparently agrees, that the Superior Court properly granted its motion for enlargement of time after the expiration of the 20-day response period, even absent a finding of excusable neglect, because “no rational purpose is served” by requiring the State to respond before it completes its factual investigation. That argument ignores the plain, mandatory language of Rule 70, and the fact that Rules 71 and 45(b) provide a specific mechanism for obtaining an enlargement of time for a response.
In my view, we should not allow the State the benefit of an indefinite delay in filing the response, contrary to the require*1183ment of Rule 70(c). A primary function of the response is to give notice whether the state will contest the petition at all. See 2 Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice § 71.3 at 71-5 (1987 & Supp.1990). I believe the Superior Court lacked discretion to grant the State’s motion without finding excusable neglect. M.R.Crim.P. 45(b); see also State v. MacLean, 560 A.2d 1088, 1090 (Me.1989).
The State argues that, if the facts alleged by the petitioner conflict with the record, then the court “should not be required to ignore the record of the case.” Because a post-conviction review proceeding is separate from the criminal prosecution involved, however, no such record exists until the State generates it by filing its response. “The respondent may annex to its response or file with its response whatever further documents it believes may assist the assigned justice in determining the issues raised by the petition.” M.R.Crim.P. 71. Those “further documents” are typically — as here — materials from the file of the underlying criminal prosecution. See 2 Cluchey & Seitzinger, § 71.3 at 71-6. In my view, the State should not be allowed to evade so easily the burden of production that is squarely placed on it by Rule 71.
The State has contended that Wellman is without remedy for its dilatory response. It is true that the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, unlike the cognate civil rules, do not provide explicitly for a remedy in the case of default. Compare M.R.Crim.P. 45(b), 70, 71 with M.R.Civ.P. 8(d), 12(h), 55. Our rules are not meant to be mere suggestions, however, and I would decline to allow the State to defy them with impunity. The effect of the State’s unexcused late response, I believe, should be as if no response had been filed; the factual allegations in the petition should be taken as admitted. Cf. M.R.Civ.P. 8(d).2
Taking the allegations in Wellman’s petition as admitted, I would conclude that the proper relief is to enforce the plea bargain agreement. 15 M.R.S.A. § 2130 (Supp.1990); see also Workman v. United States, 337 F.2d 226, 227 (1st Cir.1964). I would therefore remand for entry of a judgment granting Wellman credit toward his sentence for pretrial detention time served.3
. M.R.Crim.P. 57(a) was deleted effective June 1, 1989. The substance of the rule is now contained in M.R.Crim.P. 1(c). See M.R.Crim.P. 57 advisory committee’s note to 1989 amendment, 2 Cluchey & Seitzinger, Maine Criminal Practice 57-2 (Supp.1990).
. The majority suggests that refusal to grant a default for failure to file a timely response— even an unexcused failure like the one here— rests in the sound discretion of the Superior Court. I agree. Cf. Westbrook v. Wallace, 478 A.2d 687, 689-90 (Me.1984) (affirming trial court's dismissal of action for attorney’s failure to appear on trial date); McNutt v. Johansen, 477 A.2d 738, 740 (Me.1984) (affirming denial of motion to strike default based on failure to file an answer). But that proposition is inapposite here, because the court never ruled upon Well-man’s motion for a default judgment. The appropriateness of dismissal as a remedy for procedural default is simply not at issue in this case.
. The exclusive list of remedies in the post-conviction review statute explicitly provides for "entry of an order altering the amount of time that a person incarcerated under a sentence has served or must serve.” 15 M.R.S.A. § 2130 (Supp.1990).