Court Opinion

ID: 9663694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:48:32.489696+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:55.343891
License: Public Domain

BASCHAB, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the majority opinion. However, I write specially to note that, on original submission of this appeal, I concurred in the result because I believed the appellant’s ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims were proeedurally barred and that the majority’s conclusion that, “[h]ad this issue not been proeedurally barred we would be compelled to grant relief and order a new sentencing hearing,” was “inappropriate and ... nothing more than unnecessary dicta.” 9 So.3d at 531 (Bas-chab, J., concurring in the result). I also write specially to urge the Alabama Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Ex parte Clemons, [Ms. 1041915, May 4, 2007] — So.3d-(Ala.2007), for the reasons I set forth in my special concurrence in Clemons v. State, [Ms. CR-01-1355, November 2, 2007] — So.3d-(Ala.Crim. App.2003) (opinion on remand from Alabama Supreme Court).