Nicastro v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided February 12, 1993

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1993-02-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1994

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented. " We agree that specific issues were presented at the hearing, and we cannot say that these issues were obviously without merit. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that the cause is due to be remanded for the circuit court to make specific findings of fact as required by Rule 32.9(d), Ala.R.Crim.P. We therefore remand the cause to the Court of Criminal Appeals for it to issue an order of remand. We take this action upon the petition for writ of certiorari, not upon the motion to remand for further evidentiary proceedings pursuant to Walker's pro se "Emergency Motion.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 652 So. 2d 198 - Ex Parte Walker

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1993-02-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ON RETURN TO REMAND

TAYLOR, Judge.

¶2The appellant, Michael Angelo Nicastro, appealed from the denial of three petitions for post-conviction relief filed under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. We remanded this cause so that the circuit court could conduct an evi-dentiary hearing on the appellant’s allegations. The trial court has complied with our directions and has held a hearing. However, the court failed to make “specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented” as required by Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Thus, this cause is again remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County so that that court may comply with Rule 32.9(d), A.R.Crim.P. Due return *668should be filed with this court no later than 28 days from the date of this opinion.

¶3REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.