 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Fuqua v. State, CR-03-1877,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the provisions of Ala. Code § 14-9-41 did not refer to the time that a convicted person spent incarcerated pending trial as discussed in Ala. Code § 15-18-5, the circuit court's application of Ala. Code § 15-18-8(g) was in error and the inmate was entitled to have the time he spent in custody pending trial credited against his sentence.
|
|||||
| G.L.C. v. State, CR-03-1702,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke defendant's probation more than seven years after he was placed on probation because the maximum defendant could serve on probation as a youthful offender was three years, and any time imposed thereafter violated Ala. Code § 15-19-6(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Harris v. State, CR-03-2093,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary denial of inmate's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition was improper as court failed to address merits of claims that failure to appeal was not inmate's fault, trial counsel was ineffective for not adequately preparing, and because of alleged ineffectiveness and failure to be informed of nature and elements of charges, guilty plea was involuntary.
|
|||||
| Heard v. State, CR-01-1810,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for lesser included offense was an implied acquittal as to the greater offense. Thus, jury's verdict convicting defendant of felony murder acquitted defendant of capital murder under Ala. Code § 13A-5-40; thus, trial court was under a duty to accept his conviction for felony murder of victim and to acquit him of capital-murder charge.
|
|||||
| Hill v. State, CR-03-2178,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's mere reference to "evidence presented at the hearing" or "testimony received on record" did not satisfy the due-process requirements recognized in Ala. R. Crim. P. 27.6(f). Accordingly, court remanded defendant's cause to the circuit court with directions that it state the evidence it relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.
|
|||||
| Hinkle Metals & Supply Co. v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 2030753,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though the regulation of heating and air conditioning contractors was for the benefit of the public under Ala. Code § 34-31-19, a subcontractor was unable to recover under a performance bond for the nonpayment of materials because the "any contract" language in Ala. Code § 34-31-30 dealt with the installation of a heating or cooling system.
|
|||||
| Hodges v. State, CR-03-2124,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court stated that it was relying on the testimony of four witnesses in revoking defendant's, it did not state the substance of that testimony. Thus, trial court's order revoking defendant's probation did not comport with due process because it did not state the evidence the trial court relied on in revoking defendant's probation.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. State, CR-04-0096,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State was granted mandamus relief directing vacation of discovery orders as part of defendant's postconviction relief petition where defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for the same, issues were procedurally barred, and the information sought was either subject to a privilege, a confidentiality, or available to defendant at trial.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. State, CR-04-0145,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, March 18, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where appellant's indictment omitted an essential element of the offense of first-degree receiving stolen property, specifically that he intentionally received, retained, or disposed of stolen property, his Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition was not subject to the limitations period and the indictment charging appellant and his conviction were void.
|
|||||
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. |
