Pope v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Pope v. State

682 So. 2d 486, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 65, 1996 WL 100297

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 8, 1996

DocketCR-94-1636

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 682 So. 2d 486 (Pope 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

Pope v. State, 682 So. 2d 486, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 65, 1996 WL 100297 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant, William Pope, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P., petition. Pope was sentenced to life imprisonment on his underlying conviction for assault in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-6-20, Code of Alabama 1975.

In his petition, Pope raises a number of grounds for relief, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although an evi-dentiary hearing was held on the merits of Pope’s petition, the trial court, in its order, failed to state with particularity its reasons for denying the petition. See Williams v. State, 659 So.2d 972 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Burrell v. State, 655 So.2d 45 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); and Sullivan v. State, 652 So.2d 766 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). If the trial judge had personal knowledge of the underlying facts concerning [487]*487the issues in this case, he may deny the petition on those grounds without further proceedings, so long as he states the specific reasons for his denial in the written order. Bowers v. State, [CR-94-0935, December 1, 1995] — So.2d - (Ala.Cr.App.1995); Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).

This cause is, therefore, remanded to the trial court with instructions that the court enter an order stating with particularity the court’s reasons for denying the petition. The trial court’s findings shall be returned to this court within 90 days of the release 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.

The appellant, William Pope, appeals the trial court’s denial of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P., petition. Pope was sentenced to life imprisonment on his underlying conviction for assault in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-6-20, Code of Alabama 1975.

In his petition, Pope raises a number of grounds for relief, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Although an evi-dentiary hearing was held on the merits of Pope’s petition, the trial court, in its order, failed to state with particularity its reasons for denying the petition. See Williams v. State, 659 So.2d 972 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Burrell v. State, 655 So.2d 45 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); and Sullivan v. State, 652 So.2d 766 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). If the trial judge had personal knowledge of the underlying facts concerning [487]*487the issues in this case, he may deny the petition on those grounds without further proceedings, so long as he states the specific reasons for his denial in the written order. Bowers v. State, [CR-94-0935, December 1, 1995] — So.2d - (Ala.Cr.App.1995); Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).

This cause is, therefore, remanded to the trial court with instructions that the court enter an order stating with particularity the court’s reasons for denying the petition. The trial court’s findings shall be returned to this court within 90 days of the release of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 So. 2d 486, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 65, 1996 WL 100297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pope-v-state-alacrimapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack