Case ID: so2d_533/html/0742-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PATTERSON, Judge. McMILLAN, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sam BRISON v. STATE.
    6 Div. 779.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    Sept. 20, 1988.
    Sam Brison, pro se.
    Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Andy S. Poole, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Sam Brison, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his petition for relief from conviction or sentence, filed pursuant to A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 20, wherein he contested the validity of his 1986 convictions for murder and robbery in the first degree, for which he received two sentences of life imprisonment, to run concurrently.

The attorney general requests that this cause be remanded. He notes that Bri-son’s petition was filed on June 10, 1988, and denied on June 14, 1988, and that, consequently, the district attorney did not file a response within 30 days of the filing of the petition, Rule 20.7(a).

Pursuant to the attorney general’s request, we see no reason not to reverse and remand this cause for the district attorney to file a response to Brison’s petition and for the trial court to proceed accordingly.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BOWEN, P.J., and TYSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

McMILLAN, J., concurs specially.

McMILLAN, Judge

(concurring specially).

Pursuant to Rule 20.7(a), the State should be entitled to file a response to the petition. However, if the petition is not meritorious on its face, it would be a waste of judicial time and economy to remand this cause so that a response may be filed. I do not believe that such action was the intent behind this rule.