Cole v. State

564 So. 2d 100, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 293, 1990 WL 93266
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cole v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 548 So. 2d 1093
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided May 11, 1990·No. 4 Div. 194·Published

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

PATTERSON, Judge.

This cause was remanded by our supreme court, 559 So.2d 576, for consideration in light of Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989).

The judgment of the circuit court denying appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 20, is affirmed for the following reasons. Appellant’s grounds alleging that the sentence imposed for convictions for negotiating checks without sufficient funds and forgery exceeded the maximum authorized by law and that his guilty pleas entered to those charges were involuntary are procedurally barred, as they are precluded from consideration under A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 20.-2(a)(3), (5). The remaining argument alleging ineffective assistance of counsel lacks merit.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

Cole v. State, 564 So. 2d 100, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 293, 1990 WL 93266 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

564 So. 2d 100 (Cole v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harris v. Reed
489 U.S. 255 (Supreme Court, 1989)