Ex parte Cruse
Decision Date | 10 May 1985 |
Citation | 474 So.2d 109 |
Parties | Ex parte John Anthony CRUSE. (Re: John Anthony CRUSE v. STATE of Alabama). 83-642. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Haas and James M. Byrd, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn V. Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This court issued the writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 474 So.2d 106, in order to review that court's affirmance of the trial court's denial of petitioner's petition for the writ of error coram nobis. We reverse.
For an understanding of the issues here to be examined we set out pertinent portions of petitioner's petition for writ of error coram nobis:
8. Thereafter, on July 6, 1981, your Petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury of Mobile County for the alleged murder of Betty Tait and other charges arising out of the same events of the night hours of January 19 and 20, 1981;
9. Thereafter, your Petitioner, represented by the same court-appointed lawyer, Honorable Stephen M. Gudac, requested to be treated as Youthful Offender under the Youthful Offender Act of Alabama, and your Petitioner avers, on information and belief, that said request to be treated as a Youthful Offender was denied without any investigation whatsoever to determine whether or not your Petitioner was entitled to be considered under said Act; and your Petitioner respectfully avers that the Honorable Robert E. Hodnette, Jr., had no knowledge available to him to determine whether or not said Act should have been applied to your Petitioner and may well have thought that your Petitioner had a criminal record of some sort at that juncture since at the end of the trial of the case in Circuit Court the Honorable Judge Hodnette asked the District Attorney, "Is the Repeat Felony offender law available in this case?" and repeated said question, "Is it involved in this case?" and was told "No" by the District Attorney and appointed counsel;
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte S.B.
... ... State, 435 So.2d 53, 53-54 (Ala.1983) (plurality opinion remanding "to the circuit court for that court to correct its transfer order to reflect whether consideration was given to all requirements of § 12-15-34(d), Code 1975"); cf. Ex parte Cruse, 474 So.2d 109, 111-12 (Ala.1985) (reversing for ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not appeal a juvenile's transfer order that, because it did not comply with § 12-15-34(d), would have warranted reversal) ... The Court of Criminal Appeals relied on A.H ... ...
-
Cruse v. State
... ... The Alabama Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this Court because counsel's decision not to appeal the transfer order without Cruse's knowledge, consent, or approval denied Cruse his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. Ex parte Cruse, 474 So.2d 109 (Ala.1985). That court held that the transfer order was inadequate and alone warranted a reversal because the order did not comply with Alabama Code 1975, § 12-15-34(d), which lists the factors which must be considered before a motion to transfer is granted. The Supreme ... ...
-
ADR v. State, CR-96-1241.
... ... Thompson v. State, 525 So.2d 820 (Ala.1985). In fact, in [Ex parte Cruse, 474 So.2d 109 (1985)], the juvenile raised the issue of his counsel's failure to appeal the transfer order, by petitioning for the writ of ... ...
-
Ex parte A.D.R.
... ... v. State, 651 So.2d 1087, 1089 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). A.D.R. v. State, 687 So.2d 231 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (table). We granted A.D.R.'s petition for certiorari review; we reverse and remand ... A.D.R. cites Ex parte Cruse, 474 So.2d 109 (Ala.1985), in which we considered a juvenile's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and held that "[t]he decision of counsel appointed by the juvenile court not to appeal the transfer order, without [the juvenile's] knowledge, consent, or approval, denied him the ... ...