From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Nichols v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Sep 30, 1992
641 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

Opinion

CR 91-1135.

September 30, 1992.

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court, James Hard, J.

Elmore Nichols, Jr., pro se;

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


On April 3, 1992, the appellant filed a petition under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., seeking relief from his 1982 conviction of three counts of rape in the first degree and one count of burglary in the second degree. On that same day the trial court summarily denied the petition as barred by the period of limitations.

The appellant contends, among other claims, that his conviction should be set aside because, he says, he was not properly informed of the maximum and minimum sentences before entering his guilty plea. In Ex parte Rivers, 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such a claim is not time barred.

Because we must remand the cause on this issue, we do not address the appellant's other claims at this time. On remand, "[i]f the circuit judge has personal knowledge of the actual facts underlying the allegations in the petition, he may deny the petition without further proceedings so long as he states the reasons for the denial in a written order. . . ." Sheats v. State, 556 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989). Otherwise, he should direct the district attorney to file a response and should proceed under Rule 32. A return is to be filed with this Court within 45 days of the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All Judges concur.


Summaries of

Nichols v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Sep 30, 1992
641 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)
Case details for

Nichols v. State

Case Details

Full title:Elmore NICHOLS, Jr. v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Sep 30, 1992

Citations

641 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Nichols v. State

We note that this Court's original opinion did not address two claims that the appellant made in his…