Ray v. State
646 So. 2d 163, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 186, 1994 WL 230894
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ray v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 646 So. 2d 161 →
Opinion
ON RETURN TO REMAND
On remand, in full compliance with our instructions, the circuit judge entered the following order:
“This ease has been returned to this Court by Order of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner, a convicted felon, has filed a Ride 32 petition. His complaints are as follows:
“1. Ineffective counsel.
“2. Lack of jurisdiction in the trial court due to absence of an arrest warrant.
“3. Invalid indictment in that no evidence was presented to the Grand Jury and it fails to state ‘knowingly.’
“This Judge has a SPECIFIC RECOLLECTION of this case (See copy of TRIAL NOTES, made during course of this trial ...).
“This Petitioner was represented by one of the most experienced criminal defense lawyers in Lee County. His claim of ineffective representation is baseless and totally without merit.
[164]*164“The claim of lack of jurisdiction due to absence of an arrest warrant is without merit. This case was tried on an indictment returned by the Grand Jury.
“The claim that the indictment was defective is without merit....
“This Petition is dismissed!”
The judgment of the circuit court dismissing the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
OPINION EXTENDED;
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Ray v. State, 646 So. 2d 163, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 186, 1994 WL 230894 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).
646 So. 2d 163 (Ray v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.