326 So.2d 665 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976), 6 Div. 86, Mayola v. State

Docket Nº:6 Div. 86.
Citation:326 So.2d 665, 57 Ala.App. 137
Party Name:Michael Anthony MAYOLA v. STATE.
Case Date:February 03, 1976
Court:Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 665

326 So.2d 665 (Ala.Crim.App. 1976)

57 Ala.App. 137

Michael Anthony MAYOLA

v.

STATE.

6 Div. 86.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 3, 1976

Michael Anthony Mayola, pro se.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sam L. Webb, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Page 666

LEIGH M. CLARK, Supernumerary Circuit Judge.

The record before us in this case shows that on November 15, 1962, appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. While serving his sentence, he became an avid student of law by means of a library furnished him at public expense. The record does not indicate that he spent much time to determine legal standards of behavior but that in the eleven years service of his sentence prior to the institution of this proceeding he spent months and even years in self-service in delving deeply into legal means by which [57 Ala.App. 138] the guilty, as well as the innocent, can escape punishment as criminals.

On April 3, 1973, appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis, which he subsequently amended, and which as amended was heard and denied in August 1973. The case now before us is an appeal from the judgment denying the coram nobis petition, which appeal was submitted on pro se brief of appellant and brief of appellee on November 25, 1975. As an indigent, he was afforded counsel on the hearing of the coram nobis petition, a free transcript and counsel on appeal.

In his coram nobis petition, he sets forth a miscellany of charges relative to his communications with law enforcement officers, their conduct relative to the crime with which he was charged, his arraignment, his trial and publicity attendant upon his trial and circumstances preceding it. Categorized, the charges were:

  1. He was interrogated without counsel having been provided for him and 'without signing a waiver' of the right to counsel; and

  2. That he was arraigned without benefit of counsel;

  3. That he was in a 'state of fear and despair of his life' and that his statements 'were not the product of a rational intellect and were mentally coerced, and received in violation of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.'

  4. That he was not aware of his right to remain silent and not to incriminate himself and that no 'relative warnings or information' were given him.

There were other purported charges in the amended petition, some of which were to some extent repetitious of the charges stated above; some were vague and indefinite, consisting chiefly of argument; some of them were not even alluded to by him when he testified on the hearing of the petition.

On the hearing, petitioner was his only witness. He testified that his repeated confessions that he had been guilty of the crime against nature...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP