Nichols v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Nichols v. State

641 So. 2d 1251, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1191, 1992 WL 241121

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 30, 1992

DocketCR 91-1135

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 641 So. 2d 1251 (Nichols 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

Nichols v. State, 641 So. 2d 1251, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1191, 1992 WL 241121 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLAN, Judge.

On April 3, 1992, the appellant filed a petition under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., seeking relief from his 1982 conviction of three counts of rape in the first degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. On that same day the trial court summarily denied the petition as barred by the period of limitations.

The appellant contends, among other claims, that his conviction should be set aside because, he says, he was not properly informed of the maximum and minimum sentences before entering his guilty plea. In Ex parte Rivers, 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such a claim is not time barred.

Because we must remand the cause on this issue, we do not address the appellant’s other claims at this time. On remand, “[i]f the circuit judge has personal knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations in the petition, he may deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he [1252]*1252states the reasons for the denial in a written order_” Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). Otherwise, he should direct the district attorney to file a response and should proceed under Rule 82. A return is to be filed with this Court within 45 days of the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.

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

McMILLAN, Judge.

On April 3, 1992, the appellant filed a petition under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., seeking relief from his 1982 conviction of three counts of rape in the first degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. On that same day the trial court summarily denied the petition as barred by the period of limitations.

The appellant contends, among other claims, that his conviction should be set aside because, he says, he was not properly informed of the maximum and minimum sentences before entering his guilty plea. In Ex parte Rivers, 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such a claim is not time barred.

Because we must remand the cause on this issue, we do not address the appellant’s other claims at this time. On remand, “[i]f the circuit judge has personal knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations in the petition, he may deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he [1252]*1252states the reasons for the denial in a written order_” Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). Otherwise, he should direct the district attorney to file a response and should proceed under Rule 82. A return is to be filed with this Court within 45 days of the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

641 So. 2d 1251, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1191, 1992 WL 241121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nichols-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack