Opinion
No. CR-99-0834.
Decided February 9, 2001.
Appeal from St. Clair Circuit Court (CC-88-22.60).
Ricky D. Adkins appeals from the denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P.
Adkins raises many issues in this appeal. However, we must remand this case to the circuit court for St. Clair County for that court to make specific findings of fact concerning the allegations that are not procedurally barred in Adkins's postconviction petition. Therefore, we will not address all the issues Adkins raises.
The trial court, when denying Adkins's petition, stated:
"Though neither attorney for Petitioner was overly experienced, both performed competently, and their representation of Petitioner cannot be adjudged ineffective, professionally unreasonable or deficient. Additionally, Petitioner has not shown to this Court that, but for the conduct of counsel, a different result as to judgment, sentence or appeal would have occurred.
"All remaining claims made by Petitioner are due to be denied pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(2)-(5) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure in that each issue was raised at trial or on appeal, or could have been raised at trial or on appeal."
Before the trial court ruled on the petition, Adkins filed a motion requesting that the trial court make its own "genuine and independent findings of fact and conclusions of law." (R. 56.) Cf. Whitehead v. State, 593 So.2d 126 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991).
This is a complicated case. Adkins was sentenced to death and his conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal. Adkins v. State, 639 So.2d 515 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), aff'd, 639 So.2d 522 (Ala.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 851 (1994). The record of the Rule 32 hearing before the trial court is only two volumes; however, there is also a 14-volume supplemental record consisting of affidavits, depositions, and exhibits submitted to the trial court for its consideration on the issues presented in the petition. Our review of the allegations Adkins raises in his brief on appeal is immeasurably hampered because the trial court failed to make written findings of fact concerning each material issue of fact presented. It would be premature for this Court to review the issues without the trial court's making such findings of fact. See Ex parte Grau, [Ms. 1981601, April 7, 2000] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 2000).
Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court for St. Clair County for that court to comply with Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P., by making "specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented." See Grau; Brown v. State, 677 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Smith v. State, 665 So.2d 954 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994); Hellums v. State, 630 So.2d 477 (Ala.Crim.App.), after remand, 630 So.2d 480 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 630 So.2d 481 (Ala. 1993); Powell v. State, 616 So.2d 370 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), after remand, 616 So.2d 371 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993); Arnold v. State, 562 So.2d 296 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), after remand, 590 So.2d 387 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). It is not necessary for the trial court to address those issues it had determined were procedurally barred. Because of the complexity of this case, the trial court is given 60 days from the date of this opinion to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law with this Court.
REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
McMillan, P.J., and Baschab, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Cobb, J., recuses herself.