Alexander v. State

646 So. 2d 701, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 342, 1994 WL 445366
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Alexander v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 601 So. 2d 1130
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided August 19, 1994·No. CR-92-1543·Published

Opinion

ON RETURN TO REMAND

McMILLAN, Judge.

We remanded this cause for the trial court to determine whether the appellant, an indigent, had waived his right to counsel on appeal, 646 So.2d 700 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). Because the trial court was unable to find any evidence that the appellant waived his right to counsel, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent him. The appellant’s newly appointed counsel has filed an appellate brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that after a thorough examination, he could find no issue to assert to this court in good faith. The appellant, acting pro se, has filed a document with this court, stating, in pertinent part, that he no longer requests a new trial because the evidence allegedly favorable to him is not included in the transcript.

Because a review of the record discloses no issue warranting appellate review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alexander v. State, 646 So. 2d 701, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 342, 1994 WL 445366 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

646 So. 2d 701 (Alexander v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Alexander v. State
646 So. 2d 700 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1994)