Case ID: so2d_655/html/0046-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McMILLAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Larry D. BURRELL v. STATE.
    CR-91-1123.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    Sept. 3, 1993.
    
      Larry D. Burrell, pro se.
    James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Beth Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   On Return to Remand

McMILLAN, Judge.

This cause was remanded, 655 So.2d 46, in order for the trial court to consider certain facially meritorious issues raised in the appellant’s Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition. The trial court has now filed its return, which states that after conducting an evidentiary hearing and after considering the briefs submitted by the parties, the court has concluded that the newly discovered material facts require vacation of the appellant’s sentence. The trial court found that the resentencing is required because the State has conceded that the two prior felony convictions used to enhance the appellant’s sentencing under the Habitual Felony Offender Act were not convictions of the appellant.

The trial court’s order states that the judge “has personal knowledge of the remaining claims of the Petitioner and such claims for further relief are DENIED.” Apparently, the trial court is referring to the appellant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the court has failed to state the reasons for its denial of those claims, see Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1989).

Therefore, this cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing consistent with the findings set out in the trial court order. On remand, the trial judge also should state the reasons for his denial of any remaining claims. A return should be filed with this Court within 28 days of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur except MONTIEL, J., recused.