Ex parte Glanton
| Decision Date | 10 May 1985 |
| Citation | 474 So.2d 156 |
| Parties | Ex parte David Jerome GLANTON (Re David Jerome GLANTON v. STATE of Alabama). 84-211. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Malcolm R. Newman of Faulk, Newcomb & Newman, Dothan, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Callen Sparrow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
David Jerome Glanton's petition for writ of certiorari was granted in order to review the Court of Criminal Appeals' 474 So.2d 154, decision affirming petitioner's conviction. The dispositive issue presented here is essentially the same as that considered in Ex parte Jones, 473 So.2d 545 (Ala.1985). On the authority of Jones, we reverse.
Petitioner, by separate indictments, was indicted for two counts of kidnapping, two counts of sodomy, and two counts of rape. At his arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to all charges. On 20 July 1983, the State filed a motion for consolidation of the indictments for trial. Without affording petitioner an opportunity to be heard, the trial court granted the State's motion. A jury trial was held five days later and Glanton was found guilty on all counts. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals the convictions were affirmed.
The issue presented is whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order granting the State's motion to consolidate, within five days of trial, and without giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
Temporary Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure 15.3(b) provides:
(Emphasis added.)
We held in Ex parte Jones, supra, that the purpose of a similar provision, Temporary Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure 15.4(b) ("Joinder, Consolidation, and Severance of Defendants"), could be served only by strict compliance with the mandatory language. Id., 473 So.2d 545. Thus, in Jones, where a motion to consolidate def...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hinton v. State, 6 Div. 225
...v. United States, 357 F.2d 486, 489 (5th Cir.1966); Glanton v. State, 474 So.2d 154, 155 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 474 So.2d 156 (Ala.1985). As the defendant's defense to both charges was the same, i.e., mistaken identity, there was no chance that he could have become embar......
-
Williams v. State
...United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir.1980); Glanton v. State, 474 So.2d 154 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 474 So.2d 156 (Ala.1985); Fed.R.Crim.P.Rule 8(a); A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 15.3(a), (b)." Langham v. State, 494 So.2d 910, 915 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). See also Averette v. Stat......
-
Sharpe v. State
...(severance of jointly indicted defendants was not authorized in absence of a finding of prejudice to a defendant); Ex parte Glanton, 474 So.2d 156, 157 (Ala.1985) (granting State's motion to consolidate constituted reversible error where defendant was not given an opportunity to be heard on......
-
Jones v. State
...intent to commit rape in the present case and negate his defense of consent. Glanton v. State, 474 So.2d 154 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)." The Glanton case held that the testimony of the victim of an earlier sexual attack by the defendant was admissible to negate the defense that a victim of one of......