Ex parte Campbell

• Decision Date: 27 May 1965
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 208
• Parties: Ex parte Charles R. CAMPBELL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 242

176 So.2d 242

278 Ala. 114

Ex parte Charles R. CAMPBELL.

6 Div. 208.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 27, 1965.

Charles R. Campbell, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Justice.

Charles R. Campbell, a convict under a life sentence, has filed a petition for leave to file a writ of error coram nobis in the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County where his trial was had.

Heretofore this petitioner had filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County to hear a petition for writ of error coram nobis which he had filed in that court. This petition was dismissed since no leave had been granted by this court to file the petition. See Ex parte Campbell, 276 Ala. 407, 162 So.2d 617.

In the opinion of dismissal of the petition for mandamus it is set forth:

'In that trial, the petitioner here was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. His judgment of conviction was reviewed by this court and affirmed. Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d 623. Apparently his death sentence was commuted.

'A reading of the opinion, supra, discloses that this petitioner had, shortly before the crime for which he was convicted, escaped with two other convicts from Draper Prison. They made their way to Tuscaloosa County. Entering a rural home, they compelled a housewife therein with her two young children, to alter some of her husband's clothes. Upon completion of this altering chore, the petitioner, at gun point, took the housewife to an upstairs room and viciously raped her.'

In the present petition for leave to file a writ of error coram nobis, the petitioner, among other things, asserts that he was never taken before a committing magistrate, and was never given a preliminary hearing prior to his trial.

The appellant and his companions were apprehended in Delhi, Louisiana, on 16 July 1951. They were of course at this time escaped convicts and fugitives from justice. An indictment charging rape was returned against petitioner on 3 August 1951, and he was arraigned on 6 August 1951, at which time counsel was appointed and a plea of not guilty was entered. On 8 August 1951, additional counsel was appointed to assist in the defense. Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d 623.

As we gather from petitioner's document he is laboring under the erroneous belief that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing as a matter of right, as though he was charged by a complaint rather than by indictment.

Even under these conditions no constitutional right of an accused is violated in not giving him a preliminary hearing. Green v. Bomar (6 Cir.) 329 F.2d 796; Woodard v. State (Ala.) 171 So.2d 462. However, as before stated, this petitioner was held under an indictment.

A person accused by an indictment is not entitled to a hearing in advance of trial. This for the reason that there is no constitutional requirement, either federal or state, that there be two inquiries into probable cause. A sovereignty having once satisfied the provision for an inquiry as to probable cause by presenting the matter to a grand jury and obtaining an adjudication of the existence of probable cause, is entitled to bring the accused to trial without further litigation of this question. See United States ex rel. Kassin v. Mulligan, 295 U.S. 396, 55 S.Ct. 781, 79 L.Ed. 1501; Beavers v. Henkel, 194 U.S. 73, 24 S.Ct. 605, 48 L.Ed. 882. No merit therefor attaches to petitioner's contention that he was denied any constitutional right by not having been accorded a preliminary hearing.

Petitioner further asserts that he was put to trial with an invalid venire in that the names of only 65 jurors were on the venire. Petitioner claims he was 'entitled to a venire of not less than 75 nor more than 100 jurors.'

...