Leverett v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Leverett v. State

671 So. 2d 754, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 285, 1994 WL 391309

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 29, 1994

DocketCR-93-263

StatusPublished

This text of 671 So. 2d 754 (Leverett 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

Leverett v. State, 671 So. 2d 754, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 285, 1994 WL 391309 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant, Culbert Louis Leverett, appeals from the denial of his Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. petition.

The appellant was convicted of murder, a violation of § 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this court. Leverett v. State, 611 So.2d 481 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

In his petition, the appellant makes the following assertions:

“I. [That his] conviction was obtained by the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure;

“II. [That he] was denied the effective assistance of counsel;

“HI. [That newly] discovered evidence exists which requires that his conviction or sentence be vacated; and

“IV. [That the] evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”

The record reveals that an evidentiary hearing was held on the appellant’s petition. Although the trial court denied the appellant’s petition, it failed to “make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented” as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Thus, this cause is remanded to the trial court for that court to enter specific findings of fact. Smith v. State, 620 So.2d 87, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Mixon v. State, 611 So.2d 420 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.

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

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant, Culbert Louis Leverett, appeals from the denial of his Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. petition.

The appellant was convicted of murder, a violation of § 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this court. Leverett v. State, 611 So.2d 481 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

In his petition, the appellant makes the following assertions:

“I. [That his] conviction was obtained by the use of evidence gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure;

“II. [That he] was denied the effective assistance of counsel;

“HI. [That newly] discovered evidence exists which requires that his conviction or sentence be vacated; and

“IV. [That the] evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”

The record reveals that an evidentiary hearing was held on the appellant’s petition. Although the trial court denied the appellant’s petition, it failed to “make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented” as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Thus, this cause is remanded to the trial court for that court to enter specific findings of fact. Smith v. State, 620 So.2d 87, 88 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Mixon v. State, 611 So.2d 420 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 So. 2d 754, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 285, 1994 WL 391309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leverett-v-state-alacrimapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack