 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hooks v. State, CR-04-2220,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to raise Batson and Powell claims was not ineffective assistance; cases were decided after inmate's trial and changed the law. Under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(5), ineffectiveness claims were procedurally barred; they could have been raised earlier but were not. Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.3 and 32.6(b) burden of proof was not met.
|
|||||
| J.C.C. v. State, CR-05-1672,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: State, based on stipulated facts presented, failed to provide the trial court with sufficient evidence from which trial court could find that juvenile, as a passenger, had any control over stolen vehicle he was found in; accordingly, juvenile could not be adjudicated delinquent for receiving stolen property in violation of Ala. Code § 13A-8-16(a).
|
|||||
| Kelly v. State, CR-07-0527,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction and sentence for violating Ala. Code § 13A-8-3(a) were reversed. Because indictment alleged that defendant obtained one $ 3,000 check and evidence proved that he obtained two separate checks for $ 1,000 and $ 2,000, there was a variance between indictment and evidence presented at trial. That variance was prejudicial and therefore fatal.
|
|||||
| Madison County Bd. of Educ. v. Wilson, 2050222,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Marshall v. State, CR-04-2337,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was convicted of three counts of capital murder for murdering two victims during the course of a kidnapping (Ala. Code § 13A-5-40(a)(1) and (a)(10)). The nature of the crime, and the fact that the bound victims were killed by igniting them while they were alive--heinous, atrocious, or cruel conduct--justified imposing the death penalty.
|
|||||
| McCombs v. State, CR-06-2106,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a murder prosecution, defense counsel was ineffective for telling defendant to lie and deny that he had stabbed a man. Following this improper advice prejudiced defendant, as he thereby gave up the right to assert a claim of self-defense under Ala. Code§ 13A-3-23, for which there was significant evidentiary support.
|
|||||
| Parker v. Parker, 2070003,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court entered a judgment denying a father's custody petition based solely upon statements of counsel at a status conference, rather than upon testimony and other evidence received at a final hearing, the father's rights to due process were violated.
|
|||||
| Partain v. State, CR-06-0978,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of defendant's motion for postconviction relief was remanded under Ala. R. Crim. P. 32.9(a) because the circuit court was to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to accept documentary evidence for defendant's claim that his trial counsel was ineffective as the trial court was faced with competing pleadings by defendant and the State of Alabama.
|
|||||
| Phillips v. State, CR-07-0210,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2008, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court did not include in its written revocation order or the transcript of the revocation hearing an affirmative statement that adequately set forth the evidence upon which it relied in revoking defendant's probation, the case was remanded for it to do so in compliance with the due process requirements of Ala. R. Crim. P. 27.6(f).
|
|||||
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. |
