Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

01/13/95 BRUCE WADE COVINGTON v. STATE

January 13, 1995

BRUCE WADE COVINGTON
v.
STATE



Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court. (CC-90-2340.60 and CC-91-2904.60).

Montiel, Judge. All the Judges concur.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Montiel

MONTIEL, JUDGE

This is an appeal from the Mobile County Circuit Court's denial of a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition filed by the appellant, Bruce Wade Covington, attacking his convictions for rape in the first degree and burglary in the second degree. The appellant was represented by a different attorney at each of the proceedings relevant to this appeal-- Joe Powell represented the appellant at trial, Richard Clark handled the direct appeal, Jene Owens represented the appellant at the Rule 32 evidentiary hearing, and Cindy Powell is representing the appellant on this appeal.

Subsequent to an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the circuit Judge made the following findings of fact:

"This Petition for Relief from Conviction or Sentence coming before the Court on the 18th day of February, 1994, and the Petitioner being represented by counsel, Jene Owens, the Court makes the following findings of fact and Conclusions of law:

"1. Counsel for Petitioner, having reviewed all relevant documents, waives Petitioner's presence.

"2. All the allegations contained in the Petition were either raised on appeal and denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Alabama Supreme Court, or could have been raised on appeal.

"3. The Court further finds that the State of Alabama did not introduce or attempt to introduce any DNA evidence at the trial of this matter.

"4. Ex parte Jackson is irrelevant since Petitioner is raising the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel at the present time. However, the allegations, on their face, do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel."

(C. 36.)

The circuit court's findings of fact contained in paragraphs 2 and 4 are at least partially in error. We agree that the petition's claims of ineffectiveness of trial counsel is procedurally barred by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5) as a claim that could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on appeal. Because the appellant was represented by different counsel at trial and on appeal, any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel must be raised in a motion for a new trial in order to preserve the issue for review. Ex parte Jackson, 598 So. 2d 895, 897 (Ala. 1992); Alderman v. State, [Ms. CR-93-0097, May 6, 1994] So. 2d , (Ala. Crim. App. 1994).

"Failure to include a reasonably ascertainable issue in a motion for a new trial will result in a bar to further argument of the issue on ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.