Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James Edward MILLER v. STATE.
The appellant, James Edward Miller, filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition, attacking his conviction for manslaughter and his sentence of life imprisonment without parole.1 Without requiring a response from the State, the trial court summarily denied Miller's petition on the ground that it was successive.
On appeal, Miller argues four claims:
“I. The trial court improperly denied Miller's petition as being successive when this was the first petition filed.
“II. The trial court denied Miller his constitutional rights to a fair trial and due process when the trial judge, by his own admission said he was going to charge the jury on an altercation [between Miller and the victim] when he admitted there was no evidence before the jury of one.
“III. The trial court violated Miller's constitutional rights to due process at sentencing by using prior convictions that had already been declared void and invalid by the Circuit Court of Walker County, Alabama when the said prior convictions under plea bargain agreement had been declared invalid which the State of Alabama agreed to on November 21, 1990.
“IV. The trial court denied Miller his constitutional rights to due process by failing to send back with the jury before their deliberation in his case, the written requested jury charges he requested and the court gave.”
A review of the record indicates that Miller is correct in his claim that this is his first Rule 32 petition challenging his manslaughter conviction. The record does not indicate that a previous petition has been filed. Moreover, the State has requested that this Court remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the Jefferson Circuit Court for that court to make specific findings as to Miller's claims and to conduct an evidentiary hearing if necessary. Due return shall be made to this Court within 56 days from the date of this opinion.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.*
FOOTNOTES
1. This Court affirmed Miller's conviction and sentence, by unpublished memorandum. Miller v. State (No. CR-99-0119), 805 So.2d 793 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (table).
FOOTNOTE. Note from the reporter of decisions: On April 18, 2003, on return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion. On May 23, 2003, that court denied rehearing, without opinion. On November 7, 2003, the Supreme Court denied certiorari review, without opinion (1021538).
McMILLAN, Presiding Judge.
COBB, BASCHAB, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: CR-01-2432.
Decided: January 31, 2003
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)