Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 485. |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes Asst. Atty. Gen., for the petition.
A L. Patterson, of Phenix City, opposed.
The Court of Appeals reversed a judgment of the circuit court dismissing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The State brought certiorari, which we granted because of the importance of the question of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to grant such a writ pending an appeal in the main case which was then under submission.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals states that on the appeal from the judgment of conviction, it was affirmed in the appellate court May 8, 1945, but on May 21, 1945, the judgment of affirmance was set aside, and the cause restored to the docket where it is still pending; that on December 11, 1945, appellant filed a petition for leave to file in the circuit court a petition for writ of error coram nobis to set aside the judgment of conviction; that on August 1, 1946, the Court of Appeals granted the petition. The record shows that on November 5, 1946, the circuit court entered a judgment sustaining the motion made in that court to dismiss the petition for the writ of error coram nobis, and dismissed the petition.
The defendant who had petitioned for the writ filed security for the costs of appeal to the Court of Appeals from the judgment of November 5, 1946, The Court of Appeals reversed said judgment and remanded the cause to the circuit court so that the petition for the writ of error coram nobis should be heard and determined by that court, holding that it was the duty of that court to follow the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
Section 368, Title 15, Code, provides that the trial court shall retain jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of hearing and determining a motion for a new trial seasonably made, and an appeal from the judgment of conviction shall also raise the question of the correctness of the court's ruling on motion for a new trial made in the time allowed, and in the manner provided by law.
That feature was added to section 6105 of the Code of 1923 by the Act of September 2, 1935, see page 690, and has application only in criminal cases; and as added makes section 368, Title 15, supra. There was at the same time in the Code of 1923 section 3251, apparently inserted by the Code committee, which is now section 382, Title 15, Code of 1940. Both serve the same purpose in the main. But the language of section 368, supra, indicates the idea that the motion should be acted on before the submission of the main case since such submission is said to raise the question of the court's ruling on the motion for a new trial. In the absence of express statutory provision, when an appeal is taken and perfected in a criminal or in a civil case, the trial court loses power to grant a motion for a new trial. MacMahon v. Dozier, 237 Ala. 574, 187 So. 710; St. Louis & S. F. R. v. Dennis, 212 Ala. 590, 103 So. 894; Sharp v. Edwards, 203 Ala. 205 (6 and 7), 82 So. 455; Dorsey v. State, 19 Ala.App. 641, 99 So. 830, certiorari denied 211 Ala. 700, 100 So. 923; Connor v. State, 19 Ala.App. 444, 98 So. 482, certiorari denied 210 Ala. 505, 98 So. 483.
If sections 368 and 382, supra, do not reserve the right also to act on a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, that right is suspended pending the appeal, as we will show. It lies to set aside a conviction obtained by duress or fraud, or when by some excusable mistake or ignorance of accused, and without negligence on his part, he has been deprived of a defense which he could have used at his trial, or where facts have been concealed at the trial which, if known, would have prevented a conviction, and the accused cannot at the time present such matter in a motion for a new trial, on appeal or other existing statutory proceeding. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606(b); Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396, 107 So. 535. We do not intend here to make a complete statement of all the circumstances when the writ will lie. But what is said serves to illustrate its broad purpose.
In some respects it is like the four months statute applicable to civil cases,--Section 279, Title 7, Code, which is cumulative to the remedy in equity to vacate a judgment for fraud. Merrill v. Travis, 248 Ala. 42, 26 So.2d 258. The four months statute is not a continuation of the original suit, but is the commencement of a new action,--Hamby v. Sherrod, 248 Ala. 16, 26 So.2d 105, and Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 135--and of course that is the nature of a suit in equity. Whether proceeding under the four months statute or in equity as to a civil case, it is clear that neither remedy is available pending an appeal from the judgment sought to be vacated. This is also true in respect to a motion for a new trial in a civil case. In all such matters, it is inharmonious for two separate courts to be acting at the same time on the question of whether a judgment should be set aside. Kinney v. White, 215 Ala. 247, 110 So. 394; Gibson v. Edwards, 245 Ala. 334, 16 So.2d 865; Ex parte Hood, 107 Ala. 520, 18 So. 176; Anders v. Latimer, 198 Ala. 573, 73 So. 925; Bell v. King, 210 Ala. 557, 98 So. 796. The rule as to new trials in criminal cases was made, we think primarily to enable one convicted of a crime to appeal immediately so as to be released on bail pending an appeal without losing his right to move for a new trial.
When an appeal is taken the cause is transferred to the appellate court. If that court affirms, application can be made to it for leave to file a motion in the circuit court for the writ of error coram nobis. If found meritorious, the appellate court may grant leave, and in doing so suspend the execution of the sentence for a reasonable time to enable the application to be made to the circuit court. Lamb v. State, supra. This is of course discretionary with the appellate court.
We have seen no case but Stephenson v. State, 205 Ind. 141, 186 N.E. 293, which holds that pending an appeal the appellate court may give permission to file such a motion in the trial court, and let it be then heard and determined before final disposition of the appeal. That expression was dictum, and no reason or authority was put forth to sustain the view.
In this State, we have given consideration to the matter of coram nobis, and discussed it, first, in the case of Johnson v Williams, 244 Ala. 391, 13 So.2d 683. In that case, there had been an affirmance of a conviction is a criminal case. Following the rule stated as applicable at common law in the case of Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593, 1 So.2d 628, and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...statement of all the circumstances when the writ will lie. But what is said serves to illustrate its broad purpose.' Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 446, 35 So.2d 518 (1948). "However, the writ of error coram nobis is often abused and its very purpose frustrated and perverted by that abuse. `......
-
Summers v. State
...known of them at the trial it would not have rendered the judgment. Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 315 (1944); Brown v. State, 350 Ala. 444, 35 So.2d 518 (1948); Stephens v. State, 36 Ala.App. 57, 52 So.2d 169 (1951). 1 The writ is concerned only with errors of fact. Ex parte Powell......
-
Allen v. State
... ... Such a denial, a final adjudication, supports an appeal under the reasoning in Sparks v. State, 39 Ala.App. 517, 104 So.2d 764, and Fiorella v. State, 40 Ala.App. 587, 121 So.2d 875 ... In Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 35 So.2d 518, Foster, J., referred to coram nobis as being 'in the nature of a new civil suit.' Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 315 ... The appellate courts of this State have treated appeals from judgments denying the writ (as distinguished from ... ...
-
Johnsey-Reed Bros. Coal Co. v. Sanders
...105 Ala. 200, 16 So. 693.' See, also, the following later cases: Robinson v. Morrison, 272 Ala. 552, 561, 133 So.2d 230; Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 446, 35 So.2d 518; Gibson v. Edwards, 245 Ala. 334, 335, 16 So.2d 865; Johnson v. Foust, 242 Ala. 659, 660, 7 So.2d 864; Lord v. Werneth, 35......