Getz v. State
Decision Date | 29 September 2006 |
Docket Number | CR-05-0426. |
Citation | 984 So.2d 1221 |
Parties | Charles Wayne GETZ v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles Wayne Getz, pro se.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Yvonne A.H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Charles Wayne Getz, appeals from the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., in which he attacked his May 1997 convictions for trafficking in methamphetamines, possession of drug paraphernalia, and speeding. Getz was sentenced to life imprisonment for the trafficking conviction and to 6 months' imprisonment for the possession-of-drug-paraphernalia conviction; he was fined $10 plus court costs for the speeding conviction. On May 8, 1998, this Court affirmed Getz's conviction and sentence, by unpublished memorandum. Getz v. State (No. CR-96-1849), 738 So.2d 934 (Ala. Crim.App.1998) (table). A certificate of judgment was issued on May 27, 1998.
On December 14, 1999, Getz filed the instant Rule 32 petition, in which he alleged (1) 25 claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel;1 (2) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose his sentence because, he said, the evidence was insufficient; (3) that his cases had been improperly consolidated; and (4) that the trial court failed to give proper jury instructions. On January 4, 1999, the State filed its response, in which it argued that Getz's claims were both precluded from appellate review and without merit. On September 30, 2004, an evidentiary hearing was conducted, and Getz presented evidence in support of his claims. On November 3, 2005, the trial court issued an order denying Getz's petition. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Getz reasserts the claims he presented in his petition to the trial court.2
Although the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing, it made no specific findings in its order issued on May 6, 2005, denying Getz's Rule 32 petition. In the event the circuit court conducts an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 32 petition, Rule 32.9(d) requires the court to "make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented." See also Ex parte Walker, 652 So.2d 198 (Ala.1994); Smith v. State, 665 So.2d 954 (Ala.Crim. App.1994). As we have stated, "[a] statement of the basis of the [circuit] court's decision is essential to afford the appellant due process." Owens v. State, 666 So.2d 31, 32 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). Thus, following the evidentiary hearing, the circuit court should have entered an order that complied with the requirements of Rule 32.9(d).
This is a complicated case; Getz asserts a multitude of ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims along with several other contentions. Our review of the allegations Getz raises in his brief on appeal is hampered because the circuit court failed to make written findings of fact concerning each material issue of fact presented. Indeed, it would be premature for this Court to review the issues without 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).
Harper v. State, 676 So.2d 949, 950 (Ala. Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 698 So.2d 796 (Ala. Crim.App.1996) (table).
The circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this Court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days of the release of this opinion.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.*
1. Getz's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel include: (a) failure to file proper pretrial motions; (b) failure to file a motion of acquittal; (c) failure to request a jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lewis v. State
...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 Lewis's postconviction petition, and Lewis's third amende......
-
Stallworth v. State
...; Andrews v. State, 38 So.3d 99 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) ; Johnson v. State, 988 So.2d 1069 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ; Getz v. State, 984 So.2d 1221 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; Wiggins v. State, 987 So.2d 1153 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) ; Tarver v. State, 940 So.2d 312 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ; Sims v. State, 869 So.......
-
State v. Gissendanner
...App. 2013) (opinion after remand by the United States Supreme Court); Ex parte McCall, 30 So. 3d 400 (Ala. 2008) ; Getz v. State, 984 So. 2d 1221 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006) ; Tarver v. State, 940 So. 2d 312 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; Crum v. State, 911 So. 2d 34 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004) ; Seay v. S......
-
State v. Gissendanner, CR-09-0998
...App. 2013) (opinion after remand by the United States Supreme Court); Ex parte McCall, 30 So. 3d 400 (Ala. 2008); Getz v. State, 984 So. 2d 1221 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006); Tarver v. State, 940 So. 2d 312 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); Crum v. State, 911 So. 2d 34 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); Seay v. State......