Cole v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Cole v. State

564 So. 2d 100, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 293, 1990 WL 93266

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 11, 1990

Docket4 Div. 194

StatusPublished

This text of 564 So. 2d 100 (Cole 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 100, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 293, 1990 WL 93266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-state-alacrimapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack