Sheats v. State

Decision Date27 January 1989
Docket Number7 Div. 85
Citation556 So.2d 1094
PartiesGlen W. SHEATS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Glen W. Sheats, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief, wherein the appellant challenges his 1984 guilty plea conviction for burglary in the third degree.

The record shows that the circuit court denied the petition the same day it was filed.

From the record before this Court, the petition appears sufficiently specific and was not due to be summarily denied for any reason stated in Rule 20.7(d), Temp.A.R.Cr.P. The petition is meritorious on its face and, because the allegations of the petition stand unrefuted and unchallenged, they must be accepted as true. Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961, 962 (Ala.1984).

"[W]here the trial court does not make a finding in the record based upon its personal knowledge and where the State does not file an answer or return denying the allegations of fact in the petition, those facts must be accepted as true." Colvin v. State, 521 So.2d 1352, 1353 (Ala.Cr.App.1987).

This cause is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. If the circuit judge has personal knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations in the petition, he may deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he states the reasons for the denial in a written order. Cf. Temp.A.R.Cr.P., Rule 20.7(d). Otherwise, the circuit court should direct the district attorney to file a response, Rule 20.7, Temp.A.R.Cr.P., and proceed under Rule 20, Temp.A.R.Cr.P.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

BOWEN, Judge.

On remand, the circuit court judge entered a written order wherein he stated that he did "in fact have personal knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations in the Defendant-Petitioner's petition in that he took the Defendant-Petitioner's guilty pleas and sentenced him in these actions."

The petitioner has raised five claims in his petition: (1) His guilty pleas were unlawfully induced and not voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the pleas; (2) ineffective assistance of counsel; (3) newly discovered evidence; (4) denial of right to appeal; and (5) improper sentence. Ground (5) was dismissed at the petitioner's request.

Based on his personal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • Pierce v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 2, 1999
    ...opinion extended after remand, 654 So.2d 77 (Ala. Cr.App.1994); Ex parte Hill, 591 So.2d 462, 463 (Ala.1991); Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). The appellant's first contention is that extraneous influences on the jury during his trial deprived him of his rights under......
  • Musgrove v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 2, 2012
    ...underlying the claim to deny that claim if the judge "states the reasons for the denial in a written order." Sheats v. State, 556 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989). 7. Indeed, the prosecutor, in the above-quoted portion of the trial, warned that Musgrove would later attempt to invali......
  • Dobyne v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 30, 2000
    ...deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he states the reasons for the denial in a written order.' Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094, 1095 (Ala.Cr.App.1989)." Payne v. State, 791 So.2d 383, 394 (Ala.Cr. App.2000). The judge in this Rule 32 proceeding, Judge Jack Meigs, also pr......
  • Woodward v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 27, 2018
    ...facts underlying the allegations in the petition' and 'states the reasons for the denial in a written order.' Sheats v. State, 556 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989)."); and Fincher,724 So. 2d at 89 ("Rule 32.7 does not require the trial court to make specific findings of fact upon a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT