 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Moss v. Mosley, 2040992,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal was dismissed as amendment of amended equitable distribution order and of divorce judgment was void as corporation's motion for clarification was not a motion for clarification, but was an untimely Ala. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion because it was aimed at amendment of amended equitable distribution order and of eight-year-old divorce judgment.
|
|||||
| Patrick v. Williams, 2050203,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court that had made a child custody award in a divorce case had continuing subject matter jurisdiction under PKPA and the Alabama UCCJEA. The child's grandmother, who sought custody, remained in Alabama; she was a "person acting as a parent"; the children had close ties to Alabama; and substantial evidence regarding them was available there.
|
|||||
| R.E.N. v. State, CR-04-1846,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant, as the victim's father, was in a position of domination and control over the victim, there was sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion to convict him of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy under Ala. Code ¿¿ 13A-6-61, 13A-6-63; therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal.
|
|||||
| Snowden v. State, CR-04-0975,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the statutory elements and the facts supported a finding that trafficking in methamphetamine, Ala. Code ¿ 13A-12-231(11), and the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, Ala. Code ¿ 13A-12-218, were separate offenses, remand of defendant's case was required for judgment on two counts of his indictment. No Miranda violation was found.
|
|||||
| State v. Van Wooten, CR-04-2323,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in dismissing defendant's indictment on the basis that he had been denied his right to a speedy-trial. Although the trial court found, at the conclusion of a hearing, that the State had not made sufficient effort to try to serve the indictment on defendant, defendant failed to prove actual prejudice as a result of the delay.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. State, CR-04-1947,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the allegations in defendant's postconviction petition might have been true, there might have been sufficient grounds for granting his petition; consequently, the trial court should have held a hearing pursuant to Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.9 or received evidence in an alternative manner as allowed by that rule.
|
|||||
| Tucker v. State, CR-05-0574,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because second-degree sodomy and second-degree rape were not lesser included offenses of first-degree sodomy and first-degree rape under Ala. Code ¿¿ 13A-6-63(a)(3), 13A-6-61, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept defendant's guilty pleas to the second-degree offenses; therefore, defendant's convictions thereunder were void.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. State, CR-05-1013,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, May 26, 2006, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant did not learn that his postconviction petition had been denied until after the time for filing a notice of appeal had expired, and because he filed an Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(c) petition for an out-of-time appeal within six months after learning about the denial, defendant was entitled to an out-of-time appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
