Wilson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Wilson v. State

594 So. 2d 253, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 23, 1992 WL 38462

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 31, 1992

DocketCR-90-127

StatusPublished

This text of 594 So. 2d 253 (Wilson 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

Wilson v. State, 594 So. 2d 253, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 23, 1992 WL 38462 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RETURN TO REMAND

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause was remanded to the trial court to adjudicate two of the claims raised by the appellant in his Rule 20, A.R.Cr. P.Temp., petition: the insufficiency of the indictment claim and the ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 582 So.2d 588.

On return to remand, the trial court found that the appellant’s indictment was not ambiguous and that he was adequately informed of the crime with which he was charged. The trial court further found that the failure of the appellant’s trial counsel to challenge the indictment did not amount to ineffectiveness of counsel as defined by Strickland v. State, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Based on the record before us, we find no error in the trial court’s determination.

OPINION EXTENDED;

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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