Rel: August 23, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024

_________________________

CR-2023-0462

_________________________

J.D.M. 

v. 

State of Alabama

Appeal from Lee Circuit Court

(CC-20-904)

KELLUM, Judge.

The appellant, J.D.M., was convicted of two counts of sodomy in the 

first degree, see § 13A-6-63(a)(3), Ala. Code 1975, and one count of sexual 

abuse of a child less than 12 years old, see § 13A-6-69.1, Ala. Code 1975. 

The Lee Circuit Court sentenced J.D.M. to consecutive terms of life 
CR-2023-0462

2

imprisonment for the sodomy convictions and 20 years' imprisonment for 

the sexual-abuse conviction. The circuit court ordered J.D.M. to pay a 

total of $25,000 in fines, $3,000 to the crime victims' compensation fund, 

and court costs. The circuit court further imposed a total of 10 years of 

post-release supervision. J.D.M. timely filed a motion for new trial that 

was denied by operation of law.

On appeal, J.D.M. contends that the circuit court erroneously 

allowed his motion for a new trial to be denied by operation of law without 

first conducting an evidentiary hearing and making specific findings of 

fact. In his motion for a new trial, J.D.M. alleged that he received 

ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on, he says, his trial counsel's 

failure to conduct a thorough investigation of the relevant facts of the 

case or to review the case thoroughly with J.D.M. before trial. In support 

of his motion, J.D.M. attached a lengthy affidavit in which he argued, 

among other things, that his trial counsel was ineffective because he 

failed to file a motion for a mental evaluation or investigate "vital 

information about [J.D.M.'s] mental state" based on J.D.M.'s combatrelated injuries sustained over the course of three combat deployments 

in the military and that trial counsel did not adequately investigate or 
CR-2023-0462

3

prepare for trial or otherwise exercise due diligence in his representation 

of J.D.M. Regarding trial counsel's alleged failure to investigate and 

prepare for trial, J.D.M. specifically alleged that his trial counsel 

informed him 15 hours before trial that counsel had not spoken with any 

proposed defense witnesses and ultimately told J.D.M. no witnesses were 

testifying on his behalf because "he had not contacted anyone"; that 

counsel failed to obtain crucial medical records; that counsel was 

presented with information that was vital to J.D.M.'s defense but failed 

to present any evidence in defense of J.D.M. at trial. (C. 325-28.) In 

addition to his affidavit, J.D.M. attached additional exhibits that 

included a 42-page letter he sent to trial counsel and a thumb-drive with 

"all [of his] physical evidence." (C. 329.) 

The State did not file a response to the motion for new trial or 

otherwise refute any of the allegations in J.D.M.'s motion and in his 

affidavit, and the motion was denied by operation of law, without the 

circuit court ruling on the motion. 

In Edgar v. State, 646 So. 2d 683 (Ala. 1994), the Alabama Supreme 

Court stated:

"We hold that where, as here, a criminal defendant's motion 

for a new trial is denied under the provisions of Rule 24.4, Ala. 
CR-2023-0462

4

R. Crim. P., without an affirmative statement by the trial 

judge giving the ruling a presumption of correctness and the 

defendant supports his new trial motion by evidence that was 

not presented at trial, and that evidence, if not controverted 

by the State, will entitle him to a new trial, the denial by 

operation of law should be reversed and the case remanded 

for the trial court to conduct a hearing on his motion for new 

trial and then enter an order either granting or denying the 

motion."

646 So. 2d at 687. Furthermore, "[i]n order to carry out the purpose of 

the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and to ensure the speedy and less 

expensive handling of a criminal case, all matters relating to the question 

of whether to grant a new trial should be dealt with in the trial court."

Id. at 688.

In this case, the motion for new trial was denied by operation of 

law; thus, there is no affirmative statement by the trial judge giving the 

denial of the motion a presumption of correctness. Further, J.D.M. 

supported his motion with evidence that was not presented at trial and 

the State did not respond to the motion for new trial. 

Based on the Alabama Supreme Court's holding in Edgar, we 

reverse the denial of J.D.M.'s motion for a new trial and remand the case 

with instructions that the circuit court conduct a hearing on J.D.M.'s 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. After the hearing, the circuit 
CR-2023-0462

5

court should make specific, written findings of fact as to J.D.M.'s claims. 

The circuit court may grant or deny relief as it deems appropriate. The 

circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk 

makes due return to this Court at the earliest possible time and within 

91 days after the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall 

include the State's response, if any; a transcript of the proceedings on 

remand conducted by the circuit court; and the circuit court's findings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

Windom, P.J., and McCool, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur.