Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

620 So. 2d 748

Lynch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided September 30, 1992

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1992-09-30

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1993

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““1. With regard to [the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim], generally, the Court finds that the Defendant was represented effectively by each of his attorneys; “2. That [the first defense attorney] has practiced law in Butler County for fifteen years with approximately 25% of his law practice being in the area of criminal law; “3. That [the second defense attorney] has practiced law for twenty-nine years, primarily in Mobile County, with approximately 50% of his law practice being in the area of criminal law; “4. With regard to [trial counsels’ failure to call expert witnesses], the Court finds that the Defendant’s counsel were not ineffective because of the fact that they did not call Dr. Claude Brown, M.D., as a witness. The Court finds that Dr. Brown could not have provided any facts to the jury that would have supported the Defendant’s theory of an accidental shooting; “5. With regard to [trial counsels’ failure to investigate petitioner’s 1) mental history; 2) competency to stand trial; and 3) inability to assist in his defense because of medication he was taking], the Court finds that Defendant had no mental history upon which his counsel could have based a mental defense. The Court finds that the Defendant’s alleged mental problems did not begin until after the death of the victim in this case and that the Defendant’s attorneys obtained psychiatric assistance for the Defendant prior to indictment in this case and the attorneys were in frequent contac”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 620 So. 2d 749 - Lynch v. State

Relies on 572 So. 2d 1321 - Jackson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1992-09-30

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McMILLAN, Judge.

¶1This appeal involves the denial of petitioner’s Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., petition. The underlying conviction was for murder, in violation of § 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975. The petitioner did not take a direct appeal.

¶2The petitioner made the following allegations in his Rule 32 petition:

¶31. That he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his counsel:

(a) failed to call expert witnesses;
(b) failed to investigate the petitioner’s mental history;
(c) failed to properly evaluate the petitioner’s competency to stand trial;
(d) failed to investigate the State’s witnesses for impeachment purposes; and
(e) failed to ascertain that the petitioner was unable to assist in his defense because of medication he was taking;

¶42. That he was coerced into making a confession;

¶53. That he was unable to establish pros-ecutorial misconduct that occurred during closing arguments because that portion of the trial was excluded from the record; and

¶64. That he was not informed by the trial judge of his right to read the presentence investigation report.

¶7The trial court stated the following in its order denying the petitioner’s petition:

“1) Petitioner’s allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit; 2) petitioner’s allegation that he gave an involuntary confession is pre-eluded under Rule 32.2(a)(2) and Rule 32.2(a)(5), A.R.Cr.P.; 3) petitioner offered no evidence in support of his allegation of prosecutorial misconduct; and 4) petitioner’s argument that he was denied the right to read the presentence investigation report is precluded based upon Rule 32.2(a)(6), A.R.Cr.P.”

¶8On appeal of the denial of his Rule 32 petition, the petitioner’s sole allegation is that his trial counsel was ineffective because he did not plead or present any evidence concerning the petitioner’s mental state. The petitioner alleges that before trial, he was in a mental hospital, was on medication, and was not aware of any events that were occurring in preparation for his trial.

¶9After reviewing the record, we deem it necessary to remand this case to the Circuit Court for Butler County so that the trial court can make “specific finding of fact” relating to the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Cr.P. Jackson v. State, 572 So.2d 1321 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). A copy of those findings is to be filed with this court within 45 days from the release of this decision.

¶10REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.
/620/so2d/748 · .json · Public domain