 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Gray v. State, CR-05-0047,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court had authority to sentence defendant for violating his probation, the five-year period of confinement imposed by the trial court exceeded the maximum period of confinement allowed under Ala. Code § 15-18-8(a)(1); defendant was entitled to relief under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 on his illegal-sentence claim.
|
|||||
| H & S Homes, L.L.C. v. Shaner, 1040444,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the parties provided a method of selecting arbitrators in either their installment contracts or their arbitration agreements, the arbitration was due to be administered by the American Arbitration Association.
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, CR-04-0274,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Probable cause existed to search defendant's car, as an informant said it contained marijuana, it was seen where the informant said, defendant was nervous when a dog sniffed the car, and he said he had no key to it, even though he just drove it. Under the Fourth Amendment, its presence on private property did not require more exigent circumstances.
|
|||||
| Jennings v. State, CR-04-0320,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to show that various alleged discovery misconduct by the State caused him prejudice, his fair trial rights were not violated; further, there was no showing that remedies ordered by the trial court pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 16.5 did not cure any potential prejudice due to lack of timeliness.
|
|||||
| Jones v. State, CR-04-1183,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had not resided at his parents' house and they told him he could not stay there, he lacked standing to challenge a search and seizure of the premises under U.S. Const. amend. IV; similarly, he lacked standing to challenge a search of his mother's vehicle, which defendant stole, as he had no expectation of privacy.
|
|||||
| Madden v. State, CR-04-1201,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the indictments charging defendant with first-degree receiving stolen property under Ala. Code § 13A-8-16 did not allege that he "intentionally" received, retained, or disposed of the property in question, they omitted an essential element of the offense; therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition.
|
|||||
| Mann v. State, CR-04-1382,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| O'Callaghan v. State, CR-04-1941,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transporting methamphetamine lab supplies was a "clandestine laboratory operation," barred by Ala. Code § 13A-12-218, which was not void for vagueness for not stating where the manufacture had to occur, as venue was where the crime occurred, which was within 500 feet of a business. Possessing over one precursor substance did not have to be proved.
|
|||||
| Payne v. State, CR-04-2005,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 3, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant used a credit card without authority, he was properly convicted of fraudulent use of a credit card under Ala. Code § 13A-9-14(b); however, because defendant's two prior Florida convictions were based on nolo contendere pleas, they could not be used to enhance his sentences under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9(b)(1).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
