Adkins v. State
Decision Date | 09 February 2001 |
Docket Number | CR-99-0834. |
Citation | 930 So.2d 524 |
Parties | Ricky D. ADKINS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Stephen B. Bright and Christopher M. Johnson, and Ty Alper, Atlanta, Georgia, for appellant.
Troy King and William H. Pryor, Jr., attys. gen., and Thomas F. Parker IV (withdrawn January 24, 2001) and A. Vernon Barnett IV, asst. attys. gen., for appellee.
Ricky D. Adkins appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P.
Adkins raises many issues in this appeal. However, we must remand this case to the circuit court for St. Clair County for that court to make specific findings of fact concerning the allegations that are not procedurally barred in Adkins's postconviction petition. Therefore, we will not address all the issues Adkins raises.
The trial court, when denying Adkins's petition, stated:
(C.R. 72.)1
This is a complicated case. Adkins was sentenced to death and his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. Adkins v. State, 639 So.2d 515 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), aff'd, 639 So.2d 522 (Ala.), cert. denied 513 U.S. 851, 115 S.Ct. 151, 130 L.Ed.2d 90 (1994). The record of the Rule 32 hearing before the trial court is only two volumes; however, there is also a 14-volume supplemental record consisting of affidavits, depositions, and exhibits submitted to the trial court for its consideration on the issues presented in the petition. Our review of the allegations Adkins raises in his brief on appeal is immeasurably hampered because the trial court failed to make written findings of fact concerning each material issue of fact presented. It would be premature for this Court to review the issues without the trial court's making such findings of fact. See Ex parte Grau, 791 So.2d 345 (Ala.2000).
Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court for St. Clair County for that court to comply with Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R.Crim.P., by making "specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented." See Grau; Brown v. State, 677 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Smith v. State, 665 So.2d 954 (Ala.Crim. App.1994); Hellums v. State, 630 So.2d 477 (Ala.Crim.App.), after remand, 630 So.2d 480 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 630 So.2d 481 (Ala.1993); Powell v. State, 616 So.2d 370 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), after remand, 616 So.2d 371 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); Arnold v. State, 562 So.2d 296 (Ala. Crim.App.1990), after remand, 590 So.2d 387 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). It is not necessary for the trial court to address those issues it had determined were procedurally barred. Because of the complexity of this case, the trial court is given 60 days from the date of this opinion to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
COBB, J., recuses herself.
On Return to Remand
Ricky D. Adkins appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P. We remanded this case so that the trial court could comply with Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R.Crim.P., by making "specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented." See Adkins v. State, 930 So.2d 524 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).
The trial court has filed its return to our remand order; that return states, in part:
The trial court has failed to comply with our directions; it has not made specific findings of fact concerning each material allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in Adkins's postconviction petition. The return to remand merely contains general conclusions; it does not refer to any factual determinations.
The record reflects that Adkins's third amended postconviction petition was filed on May 24, 1999. It raised numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel that comprise nearly 13 pages of the petition. The majority of Adkins's claims concern his allegation that his trial counsel failed to investigate and failed to present mitigation evidence at the penalty phase of trial. In support of the allegations Adkins offered the depositions of Adkins's family members, the affidavits of expert witnesses, and the depositions of the two attorneys who represented Adkins at his capital trial. There are also numerous exhibits from the Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility, where Adkins underwent mental evaluations before his trial. It is impossible for this Court to review these claims without the trial court's first making specific findings of fact as to each material allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel raised in Adkins's amended petition.
For the trial court's convenience, we quote the following findings of fact made by a circuit judge and cited with approval in our opinion in Horsley v. State, 527 So.2d 1355 (Ala.Crim.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1328, 103 L.Ed.2d 596 (1989):
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. State, CR-08-1413
...301 F. 3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2002); and Hunt v. Lee, 291 F.3d 284 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 537 U.S. 1045 (2002).'"Adkins v. State, 930 So. 2d 524, 536 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (opinion on return to third remand). As we also stated in McWilliams v. State, 897 So. 2d 437, 453-54 (Ala. Crim. App. 2......
-
Lewis v. State
...the circuit court's first making such findings of fact. See Ex parte Grau, 791 So.2d 345, 346–47 (Ala. 2000) ; Adkins v. State, 930 So.2d 524, 530 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)." Getz v. State, 984 So.2d 1221, 1222 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006).Here, 13 witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing on L......
-
Musgrove v. State
...alternative rulings. Accordingly, he has not demonstrated that he is entitled to relief on this claim. See, e.g., Adkins v. State, 930 So. 2d 524, 539-40 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) ("We join the majority of jurisdictions that have considered this issue and hold that a defendant is estopped from......
-
Brooks v. State
...such a tactic, and "[w]e refuse to find an attorney's performance ineffective for following his client's wishes." Adkins v. State, 930 So. 2d 524, 540 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001). Thus, the circuit court did not err in finding that "Brooks'[s] decision to prohibit the presentation of potentially......