 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ala. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Smith, CR-07-0160,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ordering board to consider inmate for parole before he had served mandatory minimum portion of his sentence for conspiracy to traffic in cocaine because newly enacted statute did not supersede language in Ala. Code § 13A-12-232 that prohibited eligibility for parole during mandatory minimum period of incarceration.
|
|||||
| Ala. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Wright, CR-07-2157,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not have a liberty interest in parole, and because Ala. Code §§ 15-22-26, 15-22-28(e) gave the parole board discretion to amend a prior order granting parole, the circuit court exceeded its authority in holding that the board's denial of defendant's parole was arbitrary or capricious.
|
|||||
| Allen v. State, CR-07-1063,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Third-party consent to warrantless search of parent's home and bedroom was valid; 17-year old daughter lived at home, had right to access home and computer in parents' bedroom where she discovered obscene video, officers reasonably determined that she had sufficient control over premises, and she did not merely acquiesce to officer's request.
|
|||||
| B.A.H. v. State, CR-07-2236,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After traffic stop, nervous demeanor of appellant, a passenger, and his statement to officer that he did not want to undergo a patdown search gave officer reasonable suspicion that he might be armed and dangerous. Therefore, asking appellant to raise his shirt to show he had no weapons was not unreasonable warrantless search under U.S. Const. IV.
|
|||||
| Beckworth v. State, CR-07-0051,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's summary dismissal of Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 postconviction petition was mostly proper because defendant did not state claims regarding Brady, ineffective counsel, and most juror misconduct issues; but, claims that juror did not answer voir dire questions honestly required determination about whether they could have been raised sooner.
|
|||||
| Bigham v. State, CR-07-1521,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for domestic violence was reversed because a fatal variance existed between the indictment, charging first degree assault, and the evidence presented at trial; while State presented evidence victim sustained serious physical injury, it did not present sufficient evidence that defendant's actions created grave risk of death to the victim.
|
|||||
| Bishop State Cmty. College v. Douglas, 2071097,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a hearing officer's decision under Ala. Code § 36-26-104(a) to reprimand a chef and award back pay rather than terminate his employment with a college was based on consideration of the evidence presented, and because the hearing officer articulated a satisfactory explanation for his decision, the decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
|
|||||
| Butler v. MaxiStorage, Inc., 2071154,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment for defendants was inappropriate in a suit regarding the ownership of a storage company. Defendants did not have physical possession of the stock certificates of the storage company, and the evidence was disputed as to whether the parties intended to vest ownership of the storage company in defendants.
|
|||||
| Byrd v. State, CR-07-0113,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not meet his burden to prove he was mentally retarded such that imposition of the death penalty for the murder of three persons was cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. Const. amend. VIII, because when he was 17, his IQ was 75, and a pre-trial test placed his IQ at 72.
|
|||||
| Calhoun v. State, CR-07-1229,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 1, 2009, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because committing a "violent offense" as defined in Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-70 and/or 12-25-32 was not the equivalent of being a "violent offender" under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1, the trial court incorrectly concluded that defendant was not eligible for resentencing.
|
|||||
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. |
