 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lanier Worldwide, Inc. v. Clouse, 1011194,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suit filed by printer against distributor was subject to mandatory arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act as performance of services and monthly invoicing by distributor evidenced its assent to purchase order containing arbitration clause.
|
|||||
| Lucious v. State, CR-02-1445,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a post-conviction proceeding, a remand was required to allow a trial court to make a specific factual finding concerning whether the State improperly used a youthful-offender adjudication to enhance the inmate's sentence as a habitual offender.
|
|||||
| Murray v. State, CR-02-0318,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the record was silent as to whether defendant was represented by counsel at the sentencing proceedings or whether he waived his right to counsel, the case had to be remanded for a new sentencing hearing with counsel.
|
|||||
| Pate v. State, CR-02-0506,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary denial of defendant's post-conviction petition was upheld. However, where his prison sentence was over 20 years, it could not have been suspended. If requested, defendant was, on remand, to be allowed withdrawal of his guilty plea.
|
|||||
| Patterson v. State, CR-02-1137,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was unclear whether defense counsel misinformed defendant regarding his eligibility for incentive good time credit if he pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary, defendant's appeal was remanded to resolve the uncertainty.
|
|||||
| Pruitt v. State, CR-02-1088,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction, and double jeopardy was not violated, because count two of the indictment charged defendant merely with misdemeanor DUI, it would not support a conviction for felony DUI.
|
|||||
| Salva v. State, CR-01-2533,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although circumstantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for first-degree assault following his head-on collision, defendant's DUI conviction had to be vacated because that offense charged the same conduct in violation of double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| Simmons v. State, CR-02-1477,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the inmate was sentenced to 20 years for a drug sale offense and his sentence was enhanced 10 years due to his proximity to a school and a housing project, the trial court improperly split his sentence; the sentence was more than 20 years.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. State, CR-01-2408,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 29, 2003, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant was informed of the date of his trial and his right to be present, a trial court was allowed to conduct a trial in absentia because defendant had impliedly waived his right to attend the proceedings.
|
|||||
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. |
