Brown v. State, CR-94-1825
| Decision Date | 09 February 1996 |
| Docket Number | CR-94-1825 |
| Citation | 677 So.2d 1266 |
| Parties | Paul BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Paul Brown, pro se.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and LaVette Lyas-Brown, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The petitioner, Paul Brown, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment. He filed a post-conviction petition pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., claiming that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of his petition. The circuit court denied the petition.
In this appeal, the petitioner raises three issues for review. First, he claims the circuit court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel without holding an evidentiary hearing. Second, the petitioner claims that he was denied the assistance of counsel in filing his Rule 32 petition and that that denial violated his constitutional right to counsel. Finally, the petitioner claims that the circuit court failed to address the petitioner's claims for relief. Based upon that last claim, this court must remand this case to allow the circuit court to make specific findings of fact showing its basis for denying this petition.
Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P., states that the circuit court must make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented for the court's review in determining the merits of a Rule 32 petition. These findings of fact, which form the basis for the trial court's denial of a petitioner's Rule 32 petition, are necessary to afford the petitioner due process. Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Agee v. State, 639 So.2d 1388 (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Henderson v. State, 570 So.2d 879 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). The circuit court failed to make such findings. Therefore, this court remands this cause to the circuit court to make specific findings of fact as to each material issue raised in this petitioner's Rule 32 petition.
The petitioner's other two arguments on appeal are without merit. First, the circuit court relied upon the holding of Humphrey v. State, 605 So.2d 848 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), that the circuit court, in denying a Rule 32 petition, may rely upon affidavits, depositions, and evidence gathered by other methods in lieu of holding an evidentiary hearing. See, Rule 32.9(a), Ala.R.Crim.P. The petitioner incorrectly argues that Humphrey does not apply in this circumstance. The circuit court could have properly denied the petition after considering the petition and brief of the petitioner, the State's response, and a sworn affidavit from the accused attorney.
The petitioner's other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State
...none exists. Here, the circuit court correctly ruled that Fincher's petition failed under Rule 32.7. "Unfortunately, Brown v. State, 677 So. 2d 1266 (Ala. Cr. App. 1996), which I authored, has come to stand for the proposition that the circuit court must make findings of fact where there ha......
-
Adkins v. State
...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......
-
Davis v. State
...none exists. Here, the circuit court correctly ruled that Fincher's petition failed under Rule 32.7."Unfortunately, Brown v. State, 677 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), which I authored, has come to stand for the proposition that the circuit court must make findings of fact where there has bee......
-
Fincher v. State
...none exists.2 Here, the circuit court correctly ruled that Fincher's petition failed under Rule 32.7. Unfortunately, Brown v. State, 677 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), which I authored, has come to stand for the proposition that the circuit court must make findings of fact where there has be......