Therefore, we question whether it is properly before this court. SeeMorrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).
United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949); see also Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982).” [Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.], 470 U.S. [564] at 573–74, 105 S.Ct. [1504] at 1511 [ (1985) ].' “Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435, 436–37 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); see also Barbour v. State, 903 So.2d at 862.”Jackson v. State, 963 So.2d 150, 154–55 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)
[Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.], 470 U.S. [564] at 573-74, 105 S. Ct. [1504] at 1511 [(1985)].'"Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435, 436-37 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989); see also Barbour v. State, 903 So. 2d at 862."Jackson v. State, 963 So. 2d 150, 154-55 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)
The claim was not presented to the trial court, and it cannot now be considered on appeal. See, e.g., Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435, 437 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).Even if the claim had been presented in the postconviction petition, it would have been procedurally barred from review because it could have been, but was not, raised at trial and on direct appeal.
"'While the practice of adopting the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is subject to criticism, the general rule is that even when the court adopts proposed findings and conclusions verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882, 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).' " Wright v. State, 593 So.2d 111, 117-18 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 844, 113 S.Ct. 132, 121 L.Ed.2d 86 (1992)."
"'While the practice of adopting the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is subject to criticism, the general rule is that even when the court adopts proposed findings and conclusions verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr. App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882, 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).' " Wright v. State, 593 So.2d 111, 117-18 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, [506] U.S. [844], 113 S.Ct. 132, 121 L.Ed.2d 86 (1992)."
' Id., 470 U.S. at 573-74, 105 S.Ct. at 1511." Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435, 436-37 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Giles filed this action in the circuit court.
Therefore, it is not properly before this court. See Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, the appellant was also represented by two other attorneys who each had more than five years of experience in the practice of criminal law.
Therefore, it is not properly before this court. See Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, the appellant was also represented by two other attorneys who each had more than five years of experience in the practice of criminal law.
Therefore, this issue is not preserved for our review. Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).