Parnell v. State
This text of 645 So. 2d 309 (Parnell 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.
Opinion
ON SECOND RETURN TO REMAND
The appellant, Thomas Ray Parnell, appealed the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. We remanded this case, on the state’s motion, so that the court’s order denying the petition could reflect whether the court had considered the response filed by the state before dismissing the petition. Parnell v. State, 645 So.2d 308 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993). We again remanded this ease, on the state’s motion, when the court’s return to remand failed to state that it had considered the state’s response to the post-conviction petition. Parnell v. State, 645 So.2d 308 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).
The trial court has now filed a second return with this court reflecting that it considered the state’s response and that the petition was summarily denied because the issues could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal. Rule 32.2(a)(5), A.R.Crim.P.
The denial of the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
645 So. 2d 309, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 261, 1994 WL 321863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parnell-v-state-alacrimapp-1994.