Harper v. State, CR-93-1514
Decision Date | 13 January 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-93-1514 |
Citation | 676 So.2d 949 |
Parties | Albert Emmitt HARPER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Albert Emmitt Harper, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Joseph Marston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Albert Emmitt Harper, appeals from the circuit court's judgment summarily denying his Ala.R.Cr.P. 32 petition in which he contests his 1992 conviction for murder and his sentence of 39 years' imprisonment. The court's order reads in part:
The attorney general recognizes the need for this case to be remanded to the circuit court with instructions for that court to make specific findings as to each allegation not precluded from its consideration by operation of a specified ground of preclusion of Rule 32.2. Because of the wealth of allegations in Harper's petition, if the court finds that a particular allegation fails to meet the requirements of specificity of Rule 32.6(b), we encourage the court to so note with particularity in its written findings. It is to do likewise if it finds that a particular allegation fails to state a claim or to present any material issue of fact or law that would entitle Harper to relief. In other words, the court's written findings are to address individually each claim not precluded by Rule 32.2.
In the event that the circuit court on remand finds that any of Harper's claims, particularly any of the ineffective counsel claims, are meritorious on their face, the court may properly dispose of those allegations without an evidentiary hearing under one of two sets of circumstances. First, if it has before it "facts supporting the position of each party [that] are fully set out in ... supporting affidavits." Johnson v. State, 564 So.2d 1019, 1021 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ( ). Second, if the events that serve as the basis of the ineffective counsel allegation were observed by the same judge who rules on the Rule 32 petition. Ex parte Hill, 591 So.2d 462, 463 (Ala.1991) ( ). See also Benefield v. State, 583 So.2d 1370, 1370 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) ( ). In the event that the circuit judge has personal knowledge of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dobyne v. State
...v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).'" Burton v. State, 728 So.2d 1142, 1145 (Ala. Cr.App.1997), quoting Harper v. State, 676 So.2d 949, 950 (Ala.Cr.App.1995). In this case, the circuit court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the juror-misconduct claim and considered depositions a......
-
Hinton v. State
...filing his petition. Whitehead v. State, 593 So.2d 126 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) ; Cochran. ’ ”845 So.2d at 832–33 (quoting Harper v. State, 676 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) ). Accord Makres v. State, 739 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) ; Neelley v. State, 642 So.2d 494, 497 (Ala.Crim.Ap......
-
James v. Culliver
...845 So. 2d 930, 832-33 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001); Makres v. State, 739 So. 2d 1141, 1143 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998); Harper v. State, 676 So. 2d 949, 951 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). It should be noted that state procedural rules, such as Rule 32.7(d), that permit a state court to either dismiss a post......
-
Rhone v. State
...filing his petition. Whitehead v. State, 593 So.2d 126 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Cochran.'" 845 So.2d at 832-33 (quoting Harper v. State, 676 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995)). Accord Makres v. State, 739 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Neelley v. State, 642 So.2d 494, 497 (Ala.Crim.App.......