Eaton v. State, 2 Div. 503

• Decision Date: 23 May 1968
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 503
• Parties: Gerald EATON v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 854

213 So.2d 854

282 Ala. 693

Gerald EATON v. STATE of Alabama.

2 Div. 503.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 23, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1968.

John W. Drinkard, Linden, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Gerald Eaton, filed in the circuit court of Sumter County a petition for a writ of error coram nobis to set aside a judgment of that court, rendered in accordance with a jury verdict, finding him guilty of murder in the first degree and sentencing him to death by electrocution. The appeal to this court from that judgment is reported as Eaton v. State, 280 Ala. 659, 197 So.2d 761. That judgment was affirmed on January 12, 1967, and a rehearing was denied on May 5, 1967. This was Eaton's second trial after reversal of the judgment in his first trial, reported as Eaton v. State, 278 Ala. 224, 177 So.2d 444. The present appeal is from the judgment denying the coram nobis petition, which was filed on June 12, 1967, and denied on June 21, 1967, after an oral hearing before the trial court. We affirm.

Appellant was represented by court appointed counsel in his coram nobis proceeding, and is represented by the same counsel on this appeal.

Appellant alleged in his petition that (1) 'he is being illegally detained and restrained of his liberty in violation of his Constitutional rights as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, to-wit, the Fifth (5), Sixth (6), and Fourteenth (14) Amendments'; and that (2) 'he was not afforded a fair trial as guaranteed to him by the Constitution'; (3) 'that he was not afforded due process of law and equal protection of law as he is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States'; (4) 'that the Court abused its discretion in not appointing competent physicians or psychiatrists and/or committing the petitioner to the State Hospital for observation in regard to petitioner's sanity as was respectfully requested in the motion filed for the same by the petitioner'; (5) 'that the sanity hearing conducted for the petitioner did not meet the requirements of due process'; (6) 'that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant to the defendant a change of venue'; (7) 'that while imprisoned in Texas, before being returned to the State of Alabama, petitioner was forced to sign a confession, without the aid, assistance, or presence of an attorney; that the same confession was later used by the District Attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama in questioning petitioner, without the aid or presence of an attorney and before the court appointed an attorney for him'; (8) 'that the original confession which the District Attorney in Alabama used in order to induce, persuade, and force petitioner to admit guilt, was forced from him by being beaten by the Texas officials; that the same Texas officials were not present at the trial...