Michael Dewayne Hawthorne v. State of Alabama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL 12/21/07 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2007-2008 _________________________ CR-06-1804 _________________________ Michael Dewayne Hawthorne v. State of Alabama Appeal from Elmore Circuit Court (CC-01-234.61) BASCHAB, PRESIDING JUDGE The appellant, Michael Dewayne Hawthorne, alleges that, on September 5, 2001, he pled guilty to first-degree escape; that the trial court sentenced him to serve a term of twentytwo years in prison; and that he did not appeal his CR-06-1804 conviction. On August 1, 2006, he filed a Rule 32 petition, challenging his conviction. Without requiring a response from the State, the circuit court conducted a hearing and denied the petition. This appeal followed. The appellant argues that the circuit court erroneously dismissed his petition without making specific findings of fact. In his petition, he contended that he was entitled to post-conviction relief because: 1) the trial court did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment and impose a sentence in his case because he was not competent to stand trial; and 2) his sentence is illegal because the trial court allegedly erroneously sentenced him as a habitual offender because, at the time of the escape, he was allegedly serving time on multiple concurrent sentences and because this court's decision in Lee v. State, 549 So. 2d 638 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), which provides "that in prosecution for escape where a defendant is serving time for more than one prior felony conviction, all but one of the prior convictions may be used for a sentence enhancement under the habitual offender [a]ct ... [d]o offend the concerns of the 6th Amend. U.S.A. Const. that a defendant be afforded fair trial ... [a]nd due process under the 14th Amendment." (C.R. 18.) The State did not file a written response to the petition. The record in this case indicates that the circuit court conducted a hearing on the petition 2 on March 8, 2007. CR-06-1804 However, the record on appeal does not include a transcript of that hearing. Finally, the circuit court did not make specific, written findings of fact regarding the appellant's claims. See Rule 32.9(d), Ala. R. Crim. P. For these reasons, we cannot properly review the circuit court's denial of the petition. Accordingly, we remand this case for the circuit court to make specific, written findings of fact regarding the appellant's claims. The circuit court shall also make specific, written findings regarding the specific claims that were raised during the evidentiary hearing and regarding any evidence that was presented during the evidentiary hearing. On remand, the circuit court may require the State to respond to the appellant's contentions and/or may conduct an evidentiary hearing. On remand, the circuit court shall take all necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 56 days after the release of this opinion. The return to remand shall include the circuit court's written findings of fact; a transcript of the March 8, 2007, hearing if such is available; and, if applicable, the State's response and/or a transcript of any remand proceedings. 3 CR-06-1804 REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. McMillan, Shaw, Wise, and Welch, JJ., concur. 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
