Aaron v. State, 7 Div. 703
Citation | 497 So.2d 603 |
Decision Date | 14 October 1986 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 703 |
Parties | Ross AARON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ross Aaron, pro se.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Elizabeth Kellum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus. Ross Aaron is an inmate at the St. Clair Correctional Facility serving sentences totaling 120 years for theft convictions in Jefferson County. He filed a habeas corpus petition seeking to have dismissed a detainer lodged against him by Calhoun County involving a charge of forgery.
The District Attorney of St. Clair County moved to dismiss the petition because, even if the requested relief were granted, Aaron was not entitled to immediate release. The circuit court granted the State's motion and dismissed the petition.
The petition was improperly dismissed. It has been stated that the long-established rule in this state is that habeas corpus is not available until the prisoner is entitled to immediate release. Ex parte Miller, 54 Ala.App. 590, 591, 310 So.2d 890 (1975). "Where a petitioner for the writ is held under another unsatisfied sentence the petition will be dismissed, for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus and hearing thereon would be a futile and fruitless act because, by virtue of the prior unsatisfied sentence, the petitioner cannot be considered unlawfully detained and could not rightfully be enlarged." Phillips v. State, 40 Ala.App. 698, 701, 122 So.2d 551 (1960). See also Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62, 65 (Ala.Cr.App.1981) (Bookout, J., dissenting).
That traditional rule has been eroded by the expansion of the constitutional guarantees of the convicted and imprisoned. Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980), held that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper method by which an inmate can challenge a disciplinary hearing depriving him of good time credit even if the inmate would not be entitled to immediate release upon restoration of his good time. Fielding v. State, 409 So.2d 964, 965 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).
An accused's right to speedy trial remains undiminished even when he is already serving a prison sentence. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969); Byrd v. Martin, 754 F.2d 963 (11th Cir.1985); Smith v. State, 409 So.2d 958 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parris v. State
...Cf. Klopfer v. North Carolina, supra, 386 U.S. [213] at 221-222, 87 S.Ct. [988] at 992-993 [18 L.Ed.2d 1 (1967)]." Aaron v. State, 497 So.2d 603, 604 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). Therefore, we are careful to point out that a defendant's custody status does not necessarily serve as a neutral justifi......
-
State v. Alexander
...U.S. 374, 379–380, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969) (noting difficulties in preparing defense while incarcerated); Aaron v. State, 497 So.2d 603, 604 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (“[a]n accused's right to speedy trial remains undiminished even when he is already serving a prison sentence”) (citatio......
-
Lawson v. State
..."[a]n accused's right to a speedy trial remains undiminished even when he is already serving a prison sentence." Aaron v. State, 497 So.2d 603, 604 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). See also Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969). In most cases where a defendant has absented h......
-
Nickerson v. State
...of an honest mistake in a case in which no ultimate harm has been done.' " Hayes, supra, at 995-96. Additionally, in Aaron v. State, 497 So.2d 603, 604 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), this Court "An accused's right to speedy trial remains undiminished even when he is already serving a prison sentence. S......