Rahman v. State, 6 Div. 218

• Decision Date: 16 March 1990
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 218
• Citation: 563 So.2d 50
• Parties: Omar Sharif RAHMAN, alias Mitchell Minor v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 50

563 So.2d 50

Omar Sharif RAHMAN, alias Mitchell Minor v. STATE.

6 Div. 218.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 16, 1990.

Edwina E. Miller, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Norbert H. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. The circuit court denied the petition after an evidentiary hearing. In denying the petition, that court issued an extremely thorough and meticulous written order. The circuit judge is commended for his efforts, his diligence, and his compliance with Rule 20.9(d), A.R.Cr.P.Temp.

While this Court fully agrees with the entire order of the circuit court, it is necessary only to set forth a portion of that order for the purpose of this appeal.

The order of the circuit court, in pertinent part, denying the petition is as follows:

"Petitioner Mitchell Lee Minor, also know as Omar Sharif Rahman, filed petitions for post-conviction relief attacking his convictions for forgery in the second degree, robbery, and false pretense. The State of Alabama filed motions to dismiss in each case. The Court reviewed the pleadings and the records of this court and heard testimony from both parties during an evidentiary hearing. The Court finds as follows:

"2278-B: Minor was convicted of forgery in the second degree on his plea of guilty on June 19, 1972, and was sentenced to a term of one year and one day. He was represented by the Hon. Ralph C. Burroughs. On November 1, 1972, he was placed on probation for a period [of] four (4) years. That probation was revoked on March 22, 1973.

"3093-B: Minor was convicted of robbery on November 8, 1973, by jury verdict and sentenced to ten (10) years' imprisonment. At a hearing on November 20, 1973, probation was denied. Minor was represented by the Hon. Ralph C. Burroughs.

"2482-B: Minor was convicted of false personation and false pretense on his plea of guilty on October 16, 1972, and was sentenced to a term of one year and one day. He was represented by the Hon. Ralph C. Burroughs. On November 1, 1972, he was placed on probation for a period of four (4) years. Probation was revoked on March 22, 1973.

"Court records also show that the petitioner has a conviction for disturbing the peace in Case No. 1166-B for which he was fined fifty ($50.00) dollars on June 21, 1971 and a conviction for robbery in the second degree in Case No. CC-82-351 for which he received a life sentence to be served concurrently with a Talladega County robbery conviction in Case No. CC-82-175 for which he received life without parole.

"Petitioner challenges his convictions in Cases No. 2278-B, 3093-B, and 2482-B, and sets forth the following grounds as a basis for the relief sought:

"2278-B: Petitioner alleges that the Court failed to inform him of (1) the maximum and minimum sentences under the statute; (2) his right to trial by jury; (3) his privilege against self-incrimination; (4) his right to confront his accusers; and (5) his right to have a factual basis established for his guilty plea. Petitioner further alleges that he was never told either by the Court or his attorney that he had the right to request that he be judged as a youthful offender and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in failing to so inform him.

"3093-B: Petitioner alleges that the Court and his attorney failed to advise him of his rights to request youthful offender treatment and to appeal his conviction, and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to do so.

"2482-B: Petitioner alleges that the Court failed to inform him of (1) the maximum and minimum sentences under the statute; (2) the consequences of his guilty plea; (3) his right to trial by jury; (4) his privilege against self-incrimination; (5) his right to confront his accusers; and (6) his right to have a factual basis established for his guilty plea. Petitioner further alleges that he was never told by either the Court or his attorney that he had the right to request that he be judged as a youthful offender and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance in failing to so inform him.

"At the evidentiary hearing, the petitioner made additional allegations that (1) he was never advised by his attorney that his convictions could be used against him for future enhancement of sentence under the Habitual Offender Act; (2) the State struck black jurors for no reason; (3) he had alibi witnesses and that the outcome of his robbery trial would have been different if those witnesses had testified; and a police officer who testified for the State presented perjured testimony.

"The ...