A.D.R. v. State

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““[T]he Alabama Supreme Court reversed and remanded this case with instructions to allow A.D.R. an out-of-time appeal of the transfer order. In essence, the Supreme Court wiped the slate clean, giving A.D.R. a second chance to appeal his transfer for trial as an adult. Thus, under the remandment order of the Supreme Court, A.D.R. had fourteen days to file his appeal. Within that time, he should have presented these issues to the trial court, either by petition or motion to allow the juvenile court the first opportunity to address them. For example, the juvenile court might have determined an evidentiary hearing was in order regarding AD.R.’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. However, A.D.R. did nothing in the time allotted him, but refile the identical brief filed in the previous appeal. As a result, AD.R’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel have never been addressed on the merits by the trial court. If there is indeed, any merit to A.D.R.’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel ... the trial court should have been given the first opportunity to address those claims, either by written order, or by holding an evidentiary hearing. “A.D.R.’s motion for rehearing filed May 10, 1995, and his Rule 32 petition filed November 1, 1995, are not sufficient to preserve these issues in this new appeal. The trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the motion for rehearing, which was filed long after the time for appeal had run, and did not entertain A.D.R.’”

quoted by 1 later decision, including A.D.R. v. State