Owens v. State, CR-92-1233
| Decision Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | CR-92-1233 |
| Citation | 666 So.2d 31 |
| Parties | Glenn C. OWENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Glenn C. Owens, pro se.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Jean Therkelsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Glenn C. Owens, filed a petition under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., challenging his 1991 convictions for receiving stolen property, burglary, and theft. An appeal from these convictions was dismissed on the appellant's own motion. The Rule 32 petition sought relief based on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of jurisdiction, and newly discovered material facts. In his memorandum in support of his Rule 32 petition, the appellant raised the additional grounds that the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act and the principles of double jeopardy had been violated. Thereafter, he amended his petition to add claims of unlawful arrest and unconstitutional search and seizure. The trial court then set the petition for a hearing. Two days before the hearing, the State filed its response, requesting that the petition be dismissed on the grounds that the appellant's guilty plea was voluntary and that his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, unlawful arrest, and unconstitutional search and seizure were without merit. Following the hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition as to the following: (1) violation of the right to speedy trial, (2) the trial court's lack of jurisdiction, based on noncompliance with the Uniform Mandatory Disposition Detainers Act and on an alleged unlawful arrest, (3) violation of double jeopardy principles, and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel. The State contends that the petition was properly dismissed under Rule 32.3 and 32.6(b), A.R.Cr.P., because, it says, the appellant failed to meet the burden of pleading and proof, in that he failed to plead with the required specificity. The State further contends that the petition was precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(5), because, he says, the appellant could have raised his claims on direct appeal but did not because his appeal was dismissed on his own motion.
The trial court's order dismissing the petition states that the appellant informed the court that he was not attacking his guilty plea or his sentence but that he was seeking dismissal of the charges against him on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, violation of the right to a speedy trial, violation of the principles of double...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
...stated, ‘[a] statement of the basis of the trial court's decision is essential to afford the appellant due process.’ Owens v. State, 666 So.2d 31, 32 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994).’ " Dedeaux v. State, 976 So.2d 1045, 1049 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005), quoting Anglin v. State, 719 So.2d 855, 857 (Ala. Cri......
-
Stallworth v. State
...). ‘A statement of the basis of the trial court's decision is essential to afford the appellant due process.’ Owens v. State, 666 So.2d 31, 32 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).”Ex parte Grau, 791 So.2d 345, 347 (Ala.2000). Again in Ex parte McCall, 30 So.3d 400, 404 (Ala.2008), the Alabama Supreme Court......
-
Davis v. State
...court's decision is essential to afford the appellant due process."' Hartzog v. State, (Ala. Cr. App. 1997) (quoting Owens v. State, 666 So. 2d 31, 32 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994)). However, before a circuit court finds a petitioner to be entitled to a hearing under Rule 32.9, the court must find t......
-
State v. Gissendanner
...are " ‘essential to afford the appellant due process.’ " Ex parte Grau, 791 So. 2d 345, 347 (Ala. 2000) (quoting Owens v. State, 666 So. 2d 31, 32 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) ). See also Hinton v. State, 172 So. 3d 355, 360 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (opinion after remand by the United States Suprem......