Court Opinion

ID: 9806478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 19:07:25.786857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:06:00.002163
License: Public Domain

Karen R. Baker, Justice, dissenting in part and concurring in part. While I agree with the majority’s holding that this case must be reversed and remanded for the circuit court to hold an evidentiary hearing, I would go no further. Therefore, I dissent. Beverage’s sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his petition without affording him an evidentiary hearing. Having determined that the circuit court erred in failing to hold an evi-dentiary hearing, we should not address Beverage’s alternative argument. We are remanding Beverage’s Rule 37.1 petition for an evidentiary hearing and because the issue of his competency could affect the validity of his guilty plea, the majority’s analysis of Beverage’s alternative argument is flawed. Further, even if the majority’s analysis regarding Beverage’s alternative argument were correct, it is unnecessary to address Beverage’s Rule 37.1 claims in this piecemeal fashion. Accordingly, I dissent in part and concur in part. Hart, J., joins.