Guenther v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Guenther v. State

702 So. 2d 484, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, 1996 WL 55642

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 9, 1996

DocketCR-95-126

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 484 (Guenther 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

Guenther v. State, 702 So. 2d 484, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, 1996 WL 55642 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

COBB, Judge.

Carl Francis Guenther appeals from the denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition challenging his 1967 conviction for robbery. The trial court, on its own motion, denied the petition, stating that the petition was barred by the limitations period of Rule 32. All but one of the claims raised in the petition are barred by the limitations period. However, Guenther’s contention that he was improperly transferred to circuit court from juvenile court raises a jurisdictional issue, which cannot be precluded by the limitations period.

The allegations Guenther made concerning the transfer issue were not refuted by the State. Therefore, this argument is meritorious on its face and Guenther was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Temple v. State, 555 So.2d 282 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Consequently, this cause is remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Following this hearing, a transcript of the hearing and the written findings of the trial court shall be filed with this court within 90 days from the date of this opinion..

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

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

COBB, Judge.

Carl Francis Guenther appeals from the denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition challenging his 1967 conviction for robbery. The trial court, on its own motion, denied the petition, stating that the petition was barred by the limitations period of Rule 32. All but one of the claims raised in the petition are barred by the limitations period. However, Guenther’s contention that he was improperly transferred to circuit court from juvenile court raises a jurisdictional issue, which cannot be precluded by the limitations period.

The allegations Guenther made concerning the transfer issue were not refuted by the State. Therefore, this argument is meritorious on its face and Guenther was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. Temple v. State, 555 So.2d 282 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Consequently, this cause is remanded for the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on this issue. Following this hearing, a transcript of the hearing and the written findings of the trial court shall be filed with this court within 90 days from the date of this opinion..

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 484, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 30, 1996 WL 55642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guenther-v-state-alacrimapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack