Cox v. City of Atmore

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Cox v. City of Atmore

677 So. 2d 818, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1996 WL 17878

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 19, 1996

DocketCR-95-171

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 677 So. 2d 818 (Cox v. City of Atmore) 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

Cox v. City of Atmore, 677 So. 2d 818, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1996 WL 17878 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The appellant, Wade Cox, appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant was convicted of failing to purchase a business license to operate a salvage company. The appellant attempted to appeal to this court but the appeal was dismissed as untimely. The appellant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his counsel's performance was ineffective because he did not timely file the notice of appeal with this court. The trial court summarily denied the petition on the City of Atmore's motion, which failed to address the appellant's contention concerning the failure of his trial counsel to timely appeal his case.

The trial court erred in denying the petition. If the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was through no fault of the appellant's, he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal. SeeStarks v. State, 662 So.2d 1214 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), and Rule 32.1(f), Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Due return should be filed in this court no later than 42 days from the date of this opinion. The court should make findings of fact concerning this contention as required by Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.^*

All the Judges concur.

^* Note from the Reporter of Decisions: On April 19, 1996, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. On May 30, 1996, the Court withdrew its April 19, 1996, order and reversed the trial court's order denying the Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition and remanded the cause for the trial court to grant the appellant an out of time appeal in cases CC-93-435 and -436.

*Page 819

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

The appellant, Wade Cox, appeals the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant was convicted of failing to purchase a business license to operate a salvage company. The appellant attempted to appeal to this court but the appeal was dismissed as untimely. The appellant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, among other things, that his counsel's performance was ineffective because he did not timely file the notice of appeal with this court. The trial court summarily denied the petition on the City of Atmore's motion, which failed to address the appellant's contention concerning the failure of his trial counsel to timely appeal his case.

The trial court erred in denying the petition. If the failure to timely file the notice of appeal was through no fault of the appellant's, he is entitled to an out-of-time appeal. SeeStarks v. State, 662 So.2d 1214 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), and Rule 32.1(f), Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Due return should be filed in this court no later than 42 days from the date of this opinion. The court should make findings of fact concerning this contention as required by Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.^*

All the Judges concur.

^* Note from the Reporter of Decisions: On April 19, 1996, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal. On May 30, 1996, the Court withdrew its April 19, 1996, order and reversed the trial court's order denying the Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition and remanded the cause for the trial court to grant the appellant an out of time appeal in cases CC-93-435 and -436.

*Page 819

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 So. 2d 818, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 18, 1996 WL 17878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-city-of-atmore-alacrimapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack