Carleton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Carleton v. State

716 So. 2d 744, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 300, 1997 WL 593824

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 26, 1997

DocketCR-96-1827

StatusPublished

This text of 716 So. 2d 744 (Carleton 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

Carleton v. State, 716 So. 2d 744, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 300, 1997 WL 593824 (Ala. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Judge.

James Carleton challenges the trial court’s summary dismissal of his November 25,1996, Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition challenging his November 21, 1993, conviction for robbery in the first degree and his 20-year sentence.

Carleton was represented by different counsel at trial and on appeal. In his petition Carleton contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not preserving the issue of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for review on direct appeal. The circuit court ruled that Carleton’s issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was an “issue[] which [is] precluded in that [it is] successive and petitioner did not raise [it] in his motion for new trial.” C.R. 43.

The petition now before the court was Carleton’s first opportunity to present the claim to the circuit court. See Rule 32.2(b), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Alderman v. State, 647 So.2d 28, 31 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). The State concedes that the trial court’s order was incorrect and that this case must be remanded for the circuit court to address the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This case is remanded with directions consistent with this opinion. The trial court is ordered to take whatever measures necessary to fully and fairly consider this claim. Due return is ordered to this court within 56 days of the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

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

COBB, Judge.

James Carleton challenges the trial court’s summary dismissal of his November 25,1996, Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition challenging his November 21, 1993, conviction for robbery in the first degree and his 20-year sentence.

Carleton was represented by different counsel at trial and on appeal. In his petition Carleton contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective for not preserving the issue of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel for review on direct appeal. The circuit court ruled that Carleton’s issue of ineffective assistance of counsel was an “issue[] which [is] precluded in that [it is] successive and petitioner did not raise [it] in his motion for new trial.” C.R. 43.

The petition now before the court was Carleton’s first opportunity to present the claim to the circuit court. See Rule 32.2(b), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Alderman v. State, 647 So.2d 28, 31 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). The State concedes that the trial court’s order was incorrect and that this case must be remanded for the circuit court to address the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. This case is remanded with directions consistent with this opinion. The trial court is ordered to take whatever measures necessary to fully and fairly consider this claim. Due return is ordered to this court within 56 days of the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

716 So. 2d 744, 1997 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 300, 1997 WL 593824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carleton-v-state-alacrimapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack