Mayes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Mayes v. State

641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 997, 1993 WL 272394

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 23, 1993

DocketCR-92-0419

StatusPublished

This text of 641 So. 2d 1255 (Mayes 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

Mayes v. State, 641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 997, 1993 WL 272394 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Harold Eugene Mayes filed a Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., petition with the Colbert Circuit Court, challenging his conviction for theft in the second degree. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. In its order denying the petition, the trial [1256]*1256court made specific findings of fact as to the allegations made in the petition that the jury was not sworn prior to trial. However, the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact with reference to the other allegations made in the petition, as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Saffold, v. State, 563 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Thus, this cause is remanded to the circuit court so that that court can make specific findings of fact as to the other allegations made in the petition. A written return shall be filed with this court within 60 days of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

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

MONTIEL, Judge.

Harold Eugene Mayes filed a Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., petition with the Colbert Circuit Court, challenging his conviction for theft in the second degree. Following a hearing, the circuit court denied the petition. In its order denying the petition, the trial [1256]*1256court made specific findings of fact as to the allegations made in the petition that the jury was not sworn prior to trial. However, the trial court failed to make specific findings of fact with reference to the other allegations made in the petition, as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Saffold, v. State, 563 So.2d 1074 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Thus, this cause is remanded to the circuit court so that that court can make specific findings of fact as to the other allegations made in the petition. A written return shall be filed with this court within 60 days of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 1255, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 997, 1993 WL 272394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mayes-v-state-alacrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack