 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Altherr v. State, CR-02-0437,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's sentence was reversed because the introduction of defendant's prior convictions for DUI were used to enhance defendant's sentence following his latest conviction for the same offense; however, the other offenses were in another state.
|
|||||
| Baker v. State, CR-03-0846,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary denial of defendant's third postconviction petition was affirmed, as the trial court had jurisdiction to receive an indictment while an appeal of a transfer order from the juvenile court to the trial court was pending.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. Allison, 2030769,
COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in substituting its decision for the Civil Service Board of Walker County's decision as substantial evidence supported the Board's decision to reduce a discharged employee's penalty for mistakes in her job performance to reprimand.
|
|||||
| Best v. State, CR-03-0464,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Habitual felony offender sentence, within the statutory range, did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment; but, where defendant proved that he was never in possession of a victim's property, restitution ordered to that victim was improper.
|
|||||
| Bowen v. State, CR-03-1022,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The denial of defendant's petition for postconviction relief was remanded; it was unclear whether the trial court informed defendant of the nature of the charge, including its elements, and the sentencing range prior to accepting a guilty plea.
|
|||||
| Cobb v. State, CR-03-0623,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion to withdraw a guilty plea, as plea counsel stated that he misinformed defendant as to jail time. Defendant asserted his innocence and stated that he pleaded guilty so he would not receive jail time.
|
|||||
| Coventry v. State, CR-03-0815,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Record was unclear as to when defendant was arrested and other facts. Speedy-trial analysis could not be made by appellate court and the case was remanded to the trial court with instructions that it make specific fact-findings on the Barker factors.
|
|||||
| Daniel v. State, CR-02-1542,
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly sentenced to death, after the trial court considered all the mitigating and aggravating factors, no plain error was shown, and such was not the result of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor.
|
|||||
| Davant v. United Land Corp., 1021419,
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA, August 27, 2004, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It having been established that no coal was mined, removed, and sold under a lease for the past 12 years, any breach of the obligations in the lease relating to coal mined, removed, and sold from the premises was beyond the statute of limitations.
|
|||||
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. |
