 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| D.D. v. State, CR-01-2109,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The rule that a probationer was to receive a written copy of his probation conditions was mandatory. Probation revocation was reversed where defendant tested positive for drugs before he had been given a written copy of his probation conditions.
|
|||||
| Davis v. State, CR-01-2211,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant's probation was revoked due to his drinking, but he was never charged with drinking, it was improper basis for revocation. Thus, trial court's failure to advise defendant of right to request counsel during revocation was not harmless.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Washington, CR-02-0365,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's petition for writ of mandamus had to be denied, as his failure to present some documentation showing his prison-balance account, as required, meant he failed to show he met the prerequisites necessary for issuance of a writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Frazier v. State, CR-01-1317,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's order dismissing the postconviction petition did not contain any specific findings as to appellant's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and did not state which claims it found to be without merit.
|
|||||
| Hannon v. State, CR-01-2595,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a collateral record indicated that defendant had been convicted of three prior felonies and that he knew that he was going to be sentenced in the instant matter as a habitual felony offender, his sentence was proper.
|
|||||
| Hunter v. State, CR-01-1736,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exercising discretion, a magistrate issued a warrant upon a finding of probable cause that defendant committed a felony, not a misdemeanor. Defendant's arrest was legal and he was not resisting an unlawful arrest when he escaped custody.
|
|||||
| Improved Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks of the World v. Moss, 2020020,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendants waited five years to file a motion for relief of a default judgment, the motion was untimely; defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend their claim of improper notice.
|
|||||
| Ingram v. State, CR-01-2224,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's use of force, after the theft had occurred or attempted to occur, supported third-degree robbery conviction, as attempted flight, struggle, and eventual apprehension were part of a chain of events directly precipitated by the theft.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. Stewart, 1011114,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, February 28, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Application for rehearing had to be denied, as facts and other material the state supreme court was accused of failing to consider were only raised in application and state supreme court was barred from considering material not previously raised.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
