Court Opinion

ID: 9935644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:56:27.569304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:40.075087
License: Public Domain

This case was remanded on the authority of Ex parte Rice,565 So.2d 606 (Ala. 1990), so that the State could file a response to appellant's Rule 20, Ala.R.Cr.P.Temp., petition which apprised him of the preclusion grounds it was relying on in its motion to dismiss. On return to remand it is clear that the petition was correctly denied since no grounds existed upon which relief could be granted. In this instance the trial court correctly denied the petition according to Rule 20.7(d), which states, "If the court determines that the petition is not sufficiently specific, or is precluded, or fails to state a claim . . . the court may either dismiss the petition or grant leave to file an amended petition." Appellant's petition was correctly denied.
OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur. *Page 749