Moran v. State

649 So. 2d 1294, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 430, 1994 WL 529463
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Moran v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1111
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided September 30, 1994·No. CR-91-1925·Published

Opinion

On Return to Remand

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause was remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter an order making specific findings of fact concerning the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel raised in the appellant’s Rule 32, Ala.R.Cr.P., petition. The trial court has returned to us the following findings of fact and denied the petition:

“This case was remanded for specific findings of fact concerning the petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. At the hearing on his Rule 32 [petition], the petitioner was represented by retained counsel. He testified at this hearing but offered no evidence concerning this allegation. The court finds that the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel is not supported by the evidence offered. It is noted that petitioner has now retained other counsel and now alleges that counsel at the Rule 32 [hearing] was ineffective because he failed to present any evidence concerning this issue.”

Because the trial court found that the appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel consisted merely of bare allegations, unsupported by any evidence, its judgment denying the petition is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

Moran v. State, 649 So. 2d 1294, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 430, 1994 WL 529463 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

649 So. 2d 1294 (Moran v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.