Young v. StateYoung v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Brown
The appellant, Marcus Young, was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of escape in the third degree. He was sentenced to 99 years’ imprisonment for each robbery conviction and to one year and one day for the escape conviction. The sentences were to run consecutively. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in an unpublished memorandum. Young v. State, 706 So.2d 863 (Ala.Cr.App. 1997) (Table).
The appellant filed a post-conviction petition pursuant to
I.
The appellant claims that the circuit court erred in failing to make written findings of fact after the evidentiary hearing, as required by
II.
The appellant argues that the trial court violated Canon 3, Canons of Judicial Ethics, by constantly interrupting the appellant‘s attorney during the presentation of his case at the evidentiary hearing. The appellant failed to object to the interruptions; therefore, this issue is procedurally barred from review. See McCollum v. State, 678 So.2d 1210, 1213 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995) (absent an objection and an adverse ruling by the trial court, nothing is presented to the appellate court for review).
III.
The appellant contends that his Rule 32 counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the circuit court‘s interruptions during the hearing. However, “[i]t is clear under Alabama law that there is no requirement that indigent petitioners be furnished counsel regarding post-conviction proceedings.” Mayes v. State, 563 So.2d 38, 39 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990);
As stated in Part I, we are remanding this cause to the circuit court with instructions that it “make specific findings of fact relating to each material issue of fact presented” in compliance with
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.*
LONG, P.J., and McMILLAN, COBB, and BASCHAB, JJ., concur.