Bryant v. State, CR-89-403

• Citation: 571 So.2d 401
• Decision Date: 12 October 1990
• Docket Number: CR-89-403
• Parties: Jerry Devane BRYANT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 401

571 So.2d 401

Jerry Devane BRYANT v. STATE.

CR-89-403.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 12, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 30, 1990.

Gary A. Hudgins, Dothan, for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Gilda B. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

PATTERSON, Judge.

We remanded this case to the trial court with instructions that it afford appellant the opportunity to file separate petitions for each judgment which he intends to challenge under A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 20. 565 So.2d 290. We took this action because his first petition, which attacked the legality of three prior convictions in one petition, was confusing and was not in keeping with our requirement that only the judgment entered in a single trial be challenged in a particular petition. See Appendix to Rule 20.

The trial court has complied with our remand and filed its return. The record now includes 3 separate petitions filed by appellant, attacking 3 prior felony convictions: (1) (Case No. CC-87-343) possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, wherein appellant pleaded guilty on September 17, 1987, and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, fined $250.00, and ordered to pay the Victim's Compensation Fund $25.00; (2) (Case No. CC-88-774) burglary in the second degree, wherein appellant pleaded guilty on February 13, 1989, and was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment, fined $100.00, and ordered to pay $1,339.90 restitution; and (3) (Case No. CC-88-775) burglary in the third degree, wherein appellant pleaded guilty on February 13, 1989, and was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment, fined $1,000.00, and ordered to pay $100.00 to the victim's compensation fund and $700.00 restitution.

Appellant contends in his petitions that his convictions were obtained by pleas of guilty which were unlawfully induced or not made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the pleas. He also contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in all three cases. The trial court dismissed the petitions for failure to state claims for which relief could be granted. The trial court entered the following order in each of the cases:

"I have reviewed the transcript of the guilty plea in this case and find that the Defendant properly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty and was informed by the court as to all aspects of the plea. Therefore, the Rule 20 Petition is dismissed for failure to state...