
    Thomas Ray PARNELL v. STATE.
    CR-92-1186.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    April 15, 1994.
    Arthur Madden II, Mobile, for appellant.
    Thomas Ray Parnell, pro se.
    James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Beth Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
   ON RETURN TO REMAND

TAYLOR, Judge.

The appellant, Thomas Ray Parnell, appealed the summary denial of his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. The state moved this court to remand this cause to the Circuit Court for Mobile County. We granted the state’s motion and remanded the cause so that the state would have an opportunity to respond to the petition and so that the “trial court [could] amend its order to reflect that it ha[d] considered the response filed by the state.” Parnell v. State, 645 So.2d 308, 308 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).

The trial court filed a return to remand with this court. However, the remand does not reflect that the court considered the response filed by the state. The state requests that this cause be remanded again so that the trial court can “consider the response filed by the state” and amend its order accordingly. This cause is therefore remanded to the Circuit Court for Mobile County for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Due return should be filed with this court no later than 28 days from the date of this opinion.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.  