Coleman v. State

LONG, Presiding Judge.

In his petition, Coleman claimed that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to perfect a direct appeal after being requested to do so.1 The state moved to dismiss Coleman’s petition, arguing that Coleman had failed to meet the requisite level of proof and that Coleman’s claim could have been raised at trial or on appeal and was, therefore, procedurally barred under Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P. The trial court subsequently denied Coleman’s petition without an evi-dentiary hearing, stating as its reasons the same grounds set forth in…