Bell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Bell v. State

638 So. 2d 16, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 986, 1993 WL 246353

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 9, 1993

DocketCR-92-0596

StatusPublished

This text of 638 So. 2d 16 (Bell 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

Bell v. State, 638 So. 2d 16, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 986, 1993 WL 246353 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Jammy Bell filed a Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., petition with the Washington Circuit Court. The circuit court denied the petition following an evidentiary hearing. However, the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Saffold v. State, 563 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Thus, we must remand this cause to the circuit court.

Further, as the State correctly points out in brief, the prosecutor failed to respond to the allegations raised in the appellant’s petition. Therefore, on remand, the prosecutor shall file a response to the appellant’s petition and, if necessary, the circuit court shall conduct another evidentiary hearing. The circuit court shall then file written findings of fact 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