Culbreth v. State
Citation | 966 So.2d 912 |
Decision Date | 02 March 2007 |
Docket Number | CR-04-2573. |
Parties | James CULBRETH v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Culbreth, pro se.
Albert Sim Butler and Kim T. Thomas, asst. gen. counsel, Department of Corrections, for appellee.
On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court
The appellant, James Culbreth, an inmate at Easterling Correctional Facility, appeals from the circuit court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1
On October 20, 2003, Culbreth petitioned the Montgomery Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus seeking credit for time he spent in jail in the State of Washington following his release on bond and his subsequent failure to appear for trial in the Montgomery Circuit Court. On August 29, 2005, the circuit court denied the petition on the ground that venue in Montgomery County was improper, and further, because the relief sought by the appellant was cognizable in a Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition — rather than in a habeas corpus petition. This appeal followed.
The relief sought by the appellant is cognizable in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Breach v. State, 687 So.2d 1257 (Ala.Crim.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 158 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) ( ). As we stated in Graves v. State, 710 So.2d 535 (Ala.Crim.App.1997):
"
Culbreth claimed in his petition that he had been credited with 227 days of pretrial incarceration, representing the time Culbreth spent in the Montgomery County Detention Facility awaiting trial. However, Culbreth claims, the Department of Corrections failed to credit him with the time spent incarcerated in the State of Washington before he was returned to Alabama to face trial. The State did not refute Culbreth's claim. Indeed, our examination of the record indicates that the State filed no response whatsoever to Culbreth's petition. When the State fails to refute facts alleged by the petitioner, those facts must be taken as true. See, e.g., Dupaquier v. State, 814 So.2d 1008, 1010 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Mintz v. State, 675 So.2d 1356, 1358 (Ala.Crim.App.1995); Boutwell v. State, 488 So.2d 33, 34 (Ala. Crim.App.1986).
This case does not involve a situation where Culbreth escaped from custody following conviction. If that were the case, he would not be entitled to credit for time spent incarcerated outside the State of Alabama. See § 15-18-6, Ala.Code 1975 (); see also Boutwell v. Nagle, 861 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir.1988). Culbreth, however, had not yet been convicted. Instead, he was released on bond pending trial. When Culbreth failed to appear for his trial, a fugitive warrant was issued for his arrest. Thus, § 15-18-5, Ala.Code 1975, governs Culbreth's case. This statute provides:
(Emphasis supplied.) Because § 15-18-5 does not limit credit to time spent incarcerated within the State of Alabama, Culbreth is entitled to credit for the time he spent incarcerated in the State of Washington — if that incarceration occurred as a result of the fugitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Collier v. State ).
...reaffirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See, e.g., Sundberg v. Thomas, 13 So.3d 43 (Ala.Crim.App.2009); Culbreth v. State, 966 So.2d 912 (Ala.Crim.App.2007); and Ware v. State, 807 So.2d 594 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). Neither this Court nor the Court of Criminal Appeals has considered the sp......
-
Gibson v. State Hezzie Sparks v. State Dale Lane v. State Alan Hampton v. State Ellis v. State
... ... Ex parte Culbreth, 966 So.2d 910, 912 (Ala.2006). In Ex parte Culbreth, supra, our supreme court explained that 15216 implicates the issue of proper venue, rather than jurisdiction. Venue ... addresses [t]he county or other territory over which a trial court has jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary 1591 (8th ... ...
-
Gunn v. State
... ... The appellant's argument that he has not been properly credited with all of the time he spent incarcerated awaiting trial on the first-degree robbery case may be meritorious. See § 15-18-5, Ala.Code 1975; Culbreth v. State, 966 So.2d 912 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court with instructions that it conduct an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's petition. If the circuit court determines that the appellant is not entitled to any additional credit, it shall make ... ...