Smoot v. State

555 So. 2d 307, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 758, 1989 WL 140695
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
DecidedSeptember 29, 1989
Docket3 Div. 832
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 555 So. 2d 307 (Smoot 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
Smoot v. State, 555 So. 2d 307, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 758, 1989 WL 140695 (Ala. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

TYSON, Judge.

Charles Smoot appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P. (Temp.), as amended April 1, 1987. This petition was denied, following the appointment of counsel and a full evidentiary hearing being held on the merits of the petitioner’s allegations. This hearing was in conformity with the rules of procedure as above noted.

Briefs have now been filed on the allegations raised by appellate counsel.

In reviewing this record, we find that the trial court failed to make specific findings on the merits of the allegations raised at the hearing in the court below. Rule 20.-9(d) reads as follows:

“(d) FINDINGS OF FACT.
“The court shall make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented.”

On appeal appellate counsel asserts three issues which were presented in the trial court and on which no findings were made. They are as follows:

“I. Whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel, and further whether the trial court committed reversible error, when defendant was not advised of his right to appeal by either counsel or the court.
“II. Whether defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to properly object to the introduction of the tape recorded conversations admitted into evidence.
“HI. Whether the appellant was denied effective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel’s failure to call an alibi witness to testify.”

In accordance with Rule 20.9(d) as here-inabove noted, this cause is due to be and [308]*308the same is, hereby, remanded with instructions to the trial court that a complete order be entered by the trial court, making specific findings of fact based upon the evidence presented in the trial court as to each of the three issues hereinabove set forth. A due return shall be seasonably filed in this court showing the findings of fact and the written order of the trial court as to these issues.

For the reasons shown, this cause is hereby remanded with directions.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

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

Related

Ex Parte Walker
652 So. 2d 198 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1994)
Hellums v. State
597 So. 2d 245 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Smoot v. State
575 So. 2d 626 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
555 So. 2d 307, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 758, 1989 WL 140695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smoot-v-state-alacrimapp-1989.