Miller v. State

880 So. 2d 480, 2003 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 38, 2003 WL 203251
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miller v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 913 So. 2d 1148
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided January 31, 2003·No. CR-01-2432·Published

Opinion

McMILLAN, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, James Edward Miller, filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition, attacking his conviction for manslaughter and his sentence of life imprisonment without parole.1 Without requiring a response [481]*481from the State, the trial court summarily denied Miller’s petition on the ground that it was successive.

On appeal, Miller argues four claims:

“I. The trial court improperly denied Miller’s petition as being successive when this was the first petition filed. “II. The trial court denied Miller his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process when the trial judge, by his own admission said he was going to charge the jury on an altercation [between Miller and the victim] when he admitted there was no evidence before the jury of one.
“III. The trial court violated Miller’s constitutional rights to due process at sentencing by using prior convictions that had already been declared void and invalid by the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama when the said prior convictions under plea bargain agreement had been declared' invalid which the State of Alabama agreed to on November 21,1990.
“IV. The trial court denied Miller his constitutional rights to due process by failing to send back with the jury before their deliberation in his case, the written requested jury charges he requested and the court gave.”

A review of the record indicates that Miller is correct in his claim that this is his first Rule 32 petition challenging his manslaughter conviction. The record does not indicate that a previous petition has been filed. Moreover, the State has requested that this Court remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for that court to make specific findings as to Miller’s claims and to conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary. Due return shall be made to this Court within 56 days from the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

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

Miller v. State, 880 So. 2d 480, 2003 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 38, 2003 WL 203251 (Ala. Ct. App. 2003).

880 So. 2d 480 (Miller v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.