Ex parte Ellis, 3 Div. 74
| Decision Date | 14 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 74 |
| Citation | 41 Ala.App. 253,128 So.2d 108 |
| Parties | Ex parte Homer D. ELLIS. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Homer D. Ellis, pro se.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jerry L. Coe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Petitioner, Homer D. Ellis, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years. An appeal was taken to this court and the case was affirmed. Ellis v. State, 39 Ala.App. 325, 100 So.2d 725.
Two petitions have been filed here which purport to be in the nature of applications for the writ of error coram nobis.
The Attorney General has filed a motion to strike said petitions on the ground, among others, that they are 'vague, indefinite, uncertain and unintelligible.'
The functions of the writ of error coram nobis and the matters which may properly be presented in the application have been stated many times by our courts. Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444, 35 So.2d 518; Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161, 16 So.2d 315; Stephens v. State, 36 Ala.App. 57, 52 So.2d 169; Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90.
The allegations of the petitions are confusing, completely unintelligible, and are mere naked conclusions of the petitioner. Furthermore, the petition seeks relief which this court is powerless to grant. Caldwell v. State, 36 Ala.App. 612, 63 So.2d 384.
Moreover, a consideration of the record and the opinion on the appeal of Ellis v. State, supra, discloses that the matters attempted to be raised here were fully reviewed on appeal and the opinion contains a complete answer to petitioner's contentions.
The petitions are insufficient and are without merit. The Attorney General's motion is hereby granted.
Petitions dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bies v. State
...nobis which are confusing, completely unintelligible and mere naked conclusions of the petitioner are insufficient. Ex parte Ellis, 41 Ala.App. 253, 128 So.2d 108 (1961). A petition for writ of error coram nobis must describe the specific facts on which the petitioner bases the claim that h......
-
Swain v. State, 7 Div. 796
...grows out of matters already litigated and adjudicated on their merits. Seals v. State, 271 Ala. 622, 126 So.2d 474; Ex parte Ellis, 41 Ala.App. 253, 128 So.2d 108; Ex parte Rudolph, 276 Ala. 392, 162 So.2d 486; Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d The questions now sought to be raise......
-
Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Atkins
... ... with the agent without knowledge of the limitations; and (3) whether the trial court erred in submitting the case to ... ...
-
Ex parte Rudolph
...the trial court. Ex parte Seals, 271 Ala. 622, 126 So.2d 474, cert. denied 366 U.S. 954, 81 S.Ct. 1909, 6 L.Ed.2d 1246; Ex parte Ellis, 41 Ala.App. 253, 128 So.2d 108. Reason 'A' 'The imposition of the death penalty on a convicted rapist who has neither taken nor endangered life constitutes......