Categories: Alabama Case Law

S.D.S. v. STATE, 571 So.2d 1266 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990)

571 So.2d 1266

S.D.S. v. STATE.

8 Div. 530.Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
March 30, 1990. On Return to Remand August 3, 1990. Rehearing Denied September 21, 1990. Certiorari Denied December 21, 1990 Alabama Supreme Court 1900098.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Leslie G. Johnson, Judge.

No brief filed for appellant.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

This case is remanded to the circuit court for that court to make a determination as to whether appellant is indigent and, if so, to appoint counsel.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND
TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

Appellant received treatment as a youthful offender after a guilty plea and was given a split sentence of six months’ confinement and two and one-half years’ probation. No brief having been filed, we remanded this case to the trial court to determine indigency so that appellant, if so

Page 1267

entitled, could be represented by counsel on appeal. Appellant’s claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel is, as appellate counsel states, unsupported by the record. Appellant claims that his trial counsel coerced him to plead guilty as a youthful offender. However, the record clearly shows that the appellant had a full understanding of the ramifications of his plea of guilty.

Counsel for the appellant has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he “can find no evidence of error in the record or any evidence of abuse of judicial discretion in this case.” He also states that “the record reflects that Appellant’s trial attorney was diligent in his representation of the Appellant. Specifically, the attorney convinced the trial court to grant the Appellant Youthful Offender Status after an initial denial of this status by the court.”

The court’s judgment of appellant as a youthful offender is affirmed.

OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

SCALES v. STATE, 96 Ala. 69 (1892)

Nov 1892 · Alabama Supreme Court 96 Ala. 69 Scales v. The State HEADNOTES Indictment for Murder.…

1 week ago

LOVETT v. LOVETT, 11 Ala. 763 (1847)

11 Ala. 763 Supreme Court of Alabama LOVETT v. LOVETT Attorneys Hopkins, for plaintiff in…

1 week ago

STATE v. SOLOMON, 274 So.3d 1017 (2018)

274 So.3d 1017 (2018) STATE of Alabama v. David Thomas SOLOMON and Carrie Cabri Witt.…

4 years ago

EX PARTE KIDD, 105 So.3d 1265 (2012)

105 So.3d 1265 (2012) Ex parte William Darnell KIDD. In re William Darnell Kidd v.…

8 years ago

KIDD v. STATE, 105 So.3d 1261 (2012)

105 So.3d 1261 (2012) William Darnell KIDD v. STATE of Alabama. CR-10-1487.Court of Criminal Appeals…

8 years ago