Dutell v. State, CR-90-1696
| Decision Date | 27 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | CR-90-1696 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 624 |
| Parties | James DUTELL, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Phyllis J. Logsdon, Dothan, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Norbert Williams, for appellee.
The appellant appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He contends that because he was not brought before a judge within 72 hours of his arrest, his bond is due to be reduced pursuant to Ala.R.Crim.P. 4.3, which requires that he be released upon execution of an appearance bond in the minimum amount required under the schedule set out in Rule 2 of the Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration.
The record reveals that James Dutell was arrested on June 5, 1991, pursuant to a writ of arrest on two separate indictments. Each indictment charged him with the unlawful distribution of marijuana, in violation of § 13A-12-211, Code of Alabama 1975. He was taken before the Houston Circuit Court for the first time on July 17, 1991, for arraignment and for appointment of counsel. The State did not present any evidence at the hearing. At that time, the appellant filed a motion asking that bail be set in accordance with Ala.R.Crim.P. 4.3. That motion was denied. At the conclusion of the hearing, the appellant's bond was reduced from $10,000 to $5,000 on each indictment. The appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 19, 1991. A hearing on the petition was held on August 21, 1991. The State did not present any evidence at that hearing. The appellant testified that during his incarceration from June 5, 1991, until July 17, 1991, he was never taken before a judge. He was also not given the opportunity to have an attorney appointed for him. He testified that he had been unable to make the $10,000 bonds. The petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied.
Rule 4.3, in pertinent part, provides the following:
The Committee Comments to Rule 4.3 state:
The Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure were promulgated by the Alabama Supreme Court pursuant to its rulemaking power. In construing these rules, this court will attempt to ascertain and to effectuate the intent of the Alabama Supreme Court as set out in the rule. See generally ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...Ala. R. Crim. P., is "to ensure that defendants are not forgotten and left in jail without procedural due process." Dutell v. State, 596 So.2d 624, 625 (Ala.Cr. App.1991). The record refutes the appellant's allegations. He was arrested and placed in jail on the afternoon of Friday, December......
-
Ankrom v. State
...Appeals may not, however, amend the rules of procedure. ”884 So.2d at 905 n. 5 (second emphasis added). See also Dutell v. State, 596 So.2d 624, 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (stating that, in construing the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Alabama Supreme Court, “this court......
-
Smith v. State
...intent may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the rule, and the purpose of the rule. See Dutell v. State, 596 So.2d 624 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). In Thornton, we interpreted the first sentence of Rule 32.6(a) — that "[a] proceeding ... is commenced by filing a petiti......
-
Murdock v. Montgomery Cnty.
... ... asserts both federal constitutional and state law claims ... against the Defendants. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he ... asserts ... in jail without ... due process.” Dutell v ... State , 596 So.2d 624, 625 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) ... Moreover, ... ...