 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Quinlan v. Jones, 2030621,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an inmate's allegations regarding his claims of assault, battery, and wrongful deprivation of personal property were insufficient to rebut a correctional officer's showing that he was entitled to state-agent immunity, the trial court's order granting the officer summary judgment was affirmed.
|
|||||
| R.M. v. J.D.C., 2040628,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a paternity action, the challenger's appeal was untimely. Case was governed by Alabama Uniform Parentage Act, Ala. Code § 26-17-1 et seq., which placed case under Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure. Ala. R. Juv. P. 28(C) imposed 14-day limitations period for appeals, and challenger's appeal was filed more than 14 days after entry of judgment.
|
|||||
| Sanders v. State, CR-04-1509,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate was not entitled to reconsideration of his sentence of life imprisonment without parole under Ala. Code § 13A-5-9.1. The determination that the inmate was a violent offender was a determination solely for the trial court. Because he was a violent offender, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to resentence the inmate.
|
|||||
| State v. Murray, CR-03-2003,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to dismiss a 2004 indictment on double jeopardy grounds, as he was not placed in jeopardy for a charge of burglary in a 1995 indictment or by his 1997 guilty plea. Further, first-degree burglary and first-degree robbery were not so similar to encompass one another.
|
|||||
| State v. Peterson, CR-03-2004,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's guilty plea to felony murder with robbery as the underlying felony did not preclude subsequent indictment for second degree burglary arising out of the same incident as original indictment; as burglary was not an included offense of felony murder based on a robbery, the burglary indictment did not violate double jeopardy principles.
|
|||||
| Tinker v. State, CR-04-0126,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence existed to convict defendant of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine under Ala. Code § 13A-12-204 as charged and as jury was instructed. But, jury had faulty form and convicted defendant of trafficking in cocaine, which was not element of or included in conspiracy as charged, so trafficking conviction was reversed without prejudice.
|
|||||
| Tolbert v. State, CR-03-1757,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Upon finding merit to one of defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claims, remand was ordered for a determination as to whether defendant: showed any grounds for appeal, indicated any desire to appeal, showed that he would have appealed but for counsel's ill advice, or forfeited an appeal due to the same.
|
|||||
| Turner v. State, CR-03-1158,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the State introduced evidence of defendant's prior drug conviction to show knowledge and intent, the evidence violated the general exclusionary rule of Ala. R. Evid. 404(b); moreover, the trial court's limiting instruction did not negate the prejudicial effect of the erroneous admission.
|
|||||
| Ward v. State, CR-04-1320,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 26, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where inmate was removed from work-release, he was not entitled to due process protections as he was not deprived of liberty interest. Alabama Department of Corrections Classification Manual, which stated that inmate was not entitled to due process hearing before being removed from full work-release status, granted no liberty interest.
|
|||||
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. |
