Court Opinion

ID: 9663252
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:33:11.647669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:47.086429
License: Public Domain

BASCHAB, Presiding Judge.
The appellant, Courtney Laverle Robinson, was indicted for second-degree domestic violence and first-degree burglary. On December 7, 2006, he pled guilty to second-degree assault and third-degree burglary. On January 12, 2007, the trial court sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to serve concurrent terms of life in prison. See § 13A-5-9(b)(1), Ala.Code 1975. The appellant did not appeal his convictions. On August 21, 2007, he filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his convictions. After the State responded, the circuit court summarily denied the petition. This appeal followed.
The appellant argues that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he advised him to reject the State’s offer of a twenty-year sentence and to enter a blind plea. Specifically, he contends that *557trial counsel advised him that, if he entered a blind plea, “he could do better than a twenty year sentence that he could make a case for fifteen or fourteen years” and that his sentence would not be any worse than twenty years. (Appellant’s brief at p. 11.) In its order denying the petition, the circuit court did not specifically address that claim. Because the appellant’s claim could be meritorious, the circuit court erred in not addressing it.
Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court for that court to make specific, written findings of fact concerning the appellant’s claim. On remand, the circuit court may require the State to respond specifically to the appellant’s, contentions and/or may conduct an evidentiary hearing. 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 56 days after the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include the circuit court’s written findings of fact and, if applicable, the State’s response and/or a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.1
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 
McMILLAN and WISE, JJ., concur; SHAW, J., concurs in the result; and WELCH, J., dissents, with opinion.

. Because of our disposition of this case, we pretermit discussion of any remaining claims the appellant may raise in his brief to this court.