1107 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (cause remanded for circuit court to accept amendment to Rule 32 petition where circuit court, after granting petitioner’s motion for an extension of time within which to file an amendment, entered order of dismissal 22 days before the previously granted extension expired). Although Boyd’s amended petition amounted to his first attempt to amend his pleadings, it was not filed until some 31 months after he had filed his original petition. It was Boyd’s responsibility to invoke a ruling on- the new pleadings; however, he voiced no dissatisfaction with the circuit court’s failure to rule until his case arrived in this court, where the matter has been raised for the first time on appeal. “ ‘ “[I]t is axiomatic that the .App.2001), aff'd, 825 So.2d 271 (Ala.2002) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. State, 766 So.2d 860, 870 n. 2
holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court failed to make specific findings of fact relating to issues raised at an evidentiary hearing on the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not raise the issue in the circuit court holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in failing to make specific findings of fact as to all claims in the appellants rule 32 petition was not preserved for review because the appellant did not first present the claim to the circuit court holding in an appeal from the denial of a rule 32 petition that the appellants claim that the circuit court erred in not ruling on his motion to subpoena a transcript of his guilty plea proceedings was not preserved for review because the circuit court never ruled on the motion and the appellant never objected to the circuit courts failure to rule on the motion holding that rule 32 petition should have been granted where defendant was convicted in circuit court on indictment entered while case was on appeal from transfer order because circuit court lacked jurisdiction where we remanded the case to the juvenile court for further proceedings holding that the appellants claim that the circuit court improperly adopted the states proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order denying the appellants postconviction petition was not preserved for review because the appellant never objected to the circuit courts order