Carlisle v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1976 |
| Parties | In re Jimmy CARLISLE v. STATE. Ex parte Jimmy Carlisle. SC 1586. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Roger A. Brown, Birmingham, for petitioner.
None for the State.
Petition of Jimmy Carlisle for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise judgment and decision of that Court in Ex parte Carlisle, 57 Ala.App. 216, 326 So.2d 775 (1975), is denied.
In denying the petition for writ oF certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving or disapproving of all the language used or the statements of law made in the opinion of this case in the Court of Criminal Appeals. In re Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).
Writ denied.
The trial court denied bail to Jimmy Carlisle after hearing his petition for habeas corpus. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed. This court affirmed the appellate court without opinion. I concur specially by adding my thoughts on the issue before the trial court.
The trial court, after hearing the habeas corpus petition for bail, said this:
"Well in view of the Grand Jury notes, and in view of the three felonies of rape and two robberies, and in view of the past record, no bond."
Section 16 of the Constitution of 1901 provides:
"That all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses, when the proof is evident or the presumption great; and that excessive bail shall not in any case be required."
Three prerequisites are necessary to justify the denial of bail in capital cases: The evidence must be clear and strong, leading a well-guarded and dispassionate judgment to the conclusion (1) that the offense has been committed, (2) that the accused is the guilty agent, and (3) that he would probably be punished capitally if the law is administered. Lee v. State, 281 Ala. 631, 206 So.2d 875 (1968); Trammell v. State, 284 Ala. 31, 221 So.2d 390 (1969).
In Ex Parte Bynum, 294 Ala. 78, 312 So.2d 52 (1975) this court retained the classification of capital offenses even though the death penalty had been outlawed by Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972). This court followed a majority of the State Supreme Courts' holding that offenses classified as capital before Furman are still capital, and bail can constitutionally be denied.
Here the trial court was on sound ground by denying bail to Carlisle. But, be that as it may, the trial judge must have had in the back of his mind that Carlisle was a recidivist and to grant him bail would be turning loose a menace to society.
The whole subject of bail needs a thorough examination by the legislature, the courts, and the people of this state. When I say "people", I mean the whole body politic. The people should not stand idly by, "cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar. The people are the government, and until they act in an aggressive and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sprinkle v. State
...1901. Ex parte Bynum, 294 Ala. 78, 312 So.2d 52 (1975); Ex parte Carlisle, 57 Ala.App. 216, 326 So.2d 775, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 396, 326 So.2d 776 (1975). Here however, the trial judge set bail some time before trial at the request of defense counsel. No mandamus or habeas corpus proceedi......
-
Ex parte Beverly
...still exist in Alabama, and the denial of bail is not violative of Art. 1, § 16, Alabama Constitution." See also Carlisle v. State, 295 Ala. 396, 326 So.2d 776 (1976), and McLoyd v. State, 390 So.2d 1115 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 390 So.2d 1121 Although Bynum did not involve rape or the ......
-
Miller v. State
...was "a menace to society." Ex parte Carlisle, 57 Ala.App. 216, 326 So.2d 775, 776 (Ala.Cr.App.1975), cert. denied, Carlisle v. State, 295 Ala. 396, 326 So.2d 776 (1976). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the appellant's motion to The appellant argues that fingerprint c......
-
Carroll v. State
...whereby crimes are categorized as capital for purposes other than punishment." See also, Carlisle v. State, 295 Ala. 396, 326 So.2d 776 (1976) (Faulkner, J., concurring specially). Even though the Court in Bynum was concerned with the granting of bail in cases classified as capital, and we ......
-
Shakespeare in the Law
...Julius Caesar, III, i, 273. Block 175 Corporation v. Fairmont Hotel Management Com y,648F.S p.450,451 ).Colo. 1986); Carlisle v. State, 295 Ala. 396,326 So.2d 776, ~~ (1976) ("Re whole su9ject of bail needs a thorough examination by the legislature, the courts, and the people of this state.......