¶1ON RETURN TO REMAND
¶2On remand, the circuit court entered a written order containing the following findings of fact “which are based on the evidence adduced at the defendant’s Rule 20 hearing:
“1. Counsel effectively represented the defendant.
“2. The defendant failed to substantiate his claim of newly discovered evidence.
“3. The sentence imposed fell within the legal range.
“4. The Court fully protected the defendant’s constitutional rights.
“Based on these findings of fact, I deny Rule 20 relief.”
¶3Although given additional time to file a brief on return to remand, the appellant has failed to file a brief. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court denying the petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed for the reasons stated in the order of the circuit court dated November 2, 1990.
¶4OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.
¶5ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING
¶6The application for rehearing filed by the Attorney General in this case has merit. “[A]n appellant who fails to submit an argument that contains the ‘contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on,’ invites dismissal of his appeal. See A.R.App.P. 28(a)(5).” Stephens v. Lindsey, 542 So.2d 278 (Ala.1989). On return to remand, the appellant failed to file a brief. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed pursuant to Rule 2(a)(2)(A), A.R.App.P.
¶7RULE 39(k) MOTION GRANTED IN PART; APPLICATION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
¶8All Judges concur.