Baxter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Baxter v. State

641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1007

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 23, 1993

DocketCR-92-0305

StatusPublished

This text of 641 So. 2d 1255 (Baxter v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baxter v. State, 641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1007 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIE L, Judge.

Keeley Baxter filed a Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition with the Montgomery Circuit Court, attacking his convictions for attempted murder and assault in the first degree. The circuit court summarily denied the petition. A review of the record reveals that the State failed to contest the appellant’s allegations by filing responsive pleadings as required by Rule 32.7(a), A.R.Crim.P. See also Ex parte Rice, 565 So.2d 606 (Ala.1990). From our review of the petition, (and, assuming the truth of the appellant’s allegations), we are unable to say that each allegation is without merit or precluded. Bishop v. State, 608 So.2d 345 (Ala.1992). Therefore, we hold that the trial court should not have summarily dismissed the petition without requiring the state to respond to the allegations raised in the petition. Glass v. State, 627 So.2d 1096 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

Therefore, this cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A return to remand shall be filed with this court within 60 days of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

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

MONTIE L, Judge.

Keeley Baxter filed a Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition with the Montgomery Circuit Court, attacking his convictions for attempted murder and assault in the first degree. The circuit court summarily denied the petition. A review of the record reveals that the State failed to contest the appellant’s allegations by filing responsive pleadings as required by Rule 32.7(a), A.R.Crim.P. See also Ex parte Rice, 565 So.2d 606 (Ala.1990). From our review of the petition, (and, assuming the truth of the appellant’s allegations), we are unable to say that each allegation is without merit or precluded. Bishop v. State, 608 So.2d 345 (Ala.1992). Therefore, we hold that the trial court should not have summarily dismissed the petition without requiring the state to respond to the allegations raised in the petition. Glass v. State, 627 So.2d 1096 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

Therefore, this cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. A return to remand shall be filed with this court within 60 days of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baxter-v-state-alacrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack