 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Williams, CR-04-0668,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a parole board acted promptly in finding a parolee delinquent and issuing a warrant after probable cause was shown that he violated his parole, no due process violation occurred when over seven years pass before the final parole revocation hearing under Ala. Code § 15-22-32(a) was held since no prejudice was shown.
|
|||||
| Benjamin v. State, CR-03-2040,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a police officer, who monitored the conversation, was not a party to an audio-taped conversation between defendant and a confidential informant, his testimony established a foundation for the admissibility of the audiotape pursuant to Ala. R. Evid. 901(a), (b)(5) without violating the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| Burgess v. State, CR-02-0977,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 petition for postconviction relief was affirmed; his prior acts of violence were admissible under the motive and intent exceptions to Ala. R. Evid. 404(b), he failed to show ineffective assistance of counsel, and he was not mentally retarded under the most liberal definition of mental retardation.
|
|||||
| Casey v. State, CR-04-1518,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in summarily dismissing defendant's Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 postconviction petition because the State conceded that because defendant pleaded guilty to an offense that did not exist, his conviction was void and should be set aside.
|
|||||
| City of Homewood v. Bharat, LLC, 1040712,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As 2001 Ala. Acts 546, § 7, limited the amount of lodging taxes municipalities located in a county could levy pursuant to Ala. Code § 11-51-202(b), and created a variance from a general act, it violated Ala. Const. art. IV, § 105. Hence, a 6 percent lodging tax against a motel for the privilege of doing business within a city was valid.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Benefield, 1041354,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that defendant's double jeopardy claim was nonjurisdictional, and was thus precluded, conflicted with two of its prior holdings, remand was ordered for that court to consider the jurisdictional question and not the merits.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Bridges, 1041348,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a declaratory-judgment action filed against the executive director of the Alabama Historical Commission, a scuba diver's complaint alleging that portions of the Alabama Underwater Cultural Resources Act were unconstitutional failed to allege a justiciable controversy; the complaint alleged only an anticipated controversy.
|
|||||
| Ex parte Taylor, 1040186,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court's determination that no plain error was presented did not foreclose a determination of the existence of the prejudice required under Strickland v. Washington to sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thus, the court had to examine both the plain error and the prejudice standards of review.
|
|||||
| Goetzman v. State, CR-04-1249,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, September 30, 2005, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the original indictment charging defendant with first-degree robbery did not include the fact that he was aided in the robbery by another person, it was void as to a charge for second-degree robbery; therefore, the circuit court erred in summarily dismissing his second Ala. R. Crim. P. 32 postconviction petition.
|
|||||
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. |
