Echols v. State, 1 Div. 207
| Decision Date | 30 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 207 |
| Citation | 276 Ala. 489,164 So.2d 486 |
| Parties | Sam ECHOLS v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Sam Echols, pro se.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Peter M. Lind, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is from a judgment denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a hearing in the Circuit Court of Washington County.
Petitioner was indicted for murder in the first degree, found guilty of murder in the second degree and sentenced to thirty years in the penitentiary on May 13, 1958.
On May 6, 1963, petitioner filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis alleging the following grounds:
1. He had discovered vital new evidence that would have changed the jury's verdict.
2. False and perjured testimony was used by the State to convict him.
3. That the State prosecutor knowingly used false and perjured evidence during his trial.
4. The verdict of the jury was contrary to the credible evidence.
5. The credible evidence was insufficient to warrant the verdict.
6. His counsel was inadequate.
7. His conviction was illegally imposed on him.
8. Newly discovered evidence has been established that would have, if known at the time of his trial, established his innocence.
An attorney, described by petitioner as 'the best', was appointed to represent him at the hearing. After petitioner and his five witnesses were heard, the State presented documentary evidence and one witness to testify that the two attorneys representing petitioner at his original trial were capable and competent. The court then denied the petition, and listed each contention and stated why it was denied. We make brief mention of petitioner's allegations:
1. Four of the five witnesses, petitioner's close relatives, testified to a threat that the deceased was supposed to have made against petitioner just before he went to petitioner's home and was killed. The other witness said he heard the threat but he was not in Alabama when the case was tried. All the other witnesses testified at the trial but they did not mention the threat to anyone and did not testify about it. This was the alleged newly discovered evidence and, of course, was known or could have been discovered before trial.
2. The false and perjured testimony consisted of the statements of the State's witness, Archie Weaver. He allegedly testified at the original trial that he was not at petitioner's house and later that he was there. The jury heard these statements and had the right to assess such credibility to that witness as they deemed proper. The mere fact that a witness contradicts himself on the witness stand does not mean that a defendant was convicted on false or perjured testimony.
3. No evidence was adduced that the prosecutor knowingly used false testimony (that listed in 2, supra) and petitioner testified that the prosecutor did not knowingly use perjured testimony against him.
4. and 5. The trial court found that the petitioner was legally arrested and arraigned on March 13, 1958, released on bond until his trial on May 13, 1958, that the trial was fairly and impartially conducted and petitioner was ably represented by counsel at his trial.
6. Petitioner's attorneys on the original trail were of his own choosing and they were paid by him. Conviction of a client does not prove lack of skill or zeal on the part of counsel. Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650; Mitchell v. United States, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 259 F.2d 787, cert. denied 358 U.S. 850, 79 S.Ct. 81, 3 L.Ed.2d 86. There was no evidence that his attorneys were not adequate.
7. The record refutes the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summers v. State
...have discovered the information in time to prevent the original conviction the remedy of coram nobis is not available. Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486 (1964); Isom v. State, 44 Ala.App. 6, 200 So.2d 506 (1966), reversed on other grounds, 281 Ala. 189, 200 So.2d 511 (1967). The ......
-
Honore v. Washington State Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles
...v. United States, Supra; Cullins v. Crouse, Supra. And, See Baker v. United States, 334 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1964); Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486 (1964); Austin v. State, 91 Idaho 404, 422 P.2d 71 (1966); Darnell v. Peyton, 208 Va. 675, 160 S.E.2d 749 (1968). Indeed, some go so......
-
Jackson v. State
... Page 542 ... 501 So.2d 542 ... Patricia Ann Thomas JACKSON ... 6 Div. 11 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... Oct. 14, 1986 ... See e.g. Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486 (1964)." J.L. Carroll, ... "1. I promise you--and I don't mean this in any way in a macabre fashion--if ... ...
-
Taylor v. State
...See Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 867, 84 S.Ct. 142, 11 L.ed.2d 95 (1963); Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486 (1964); Aldridge v. Sate, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51 The proper role of defense counsel has received much attention by members of the......