Ex parte Hammonds, 3 Div. 49
| Decision Date | 18 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 49 |
| Citation | 45 Ala.App. 468,231 So.2d 922 |
| Parties | Ex parte James R. HAMMONDS. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Travis Mathis, Arkadelphia, Ark., for petitioner.
No appearance for the State.
June 18, 1968, the former Court of Appeals entered an order of final dismissal of Hammonds's appeal. The reasons appear in Hammonds, 44 Ala.App. 256, 206 So.2d 924.
I.
Now Hammonds's counsel has filed a motion for reinstatement of the appeal in question. Among other things, counsel avers:
'* * * dismissal of appeal without consideration upon its merits cures errors committed by the trial court without any basis in law.'
Whatever may be the ultimate subjective absolute truth revealed at the Awful Day of Final Judgment, its certitude alone cannot excuse a delay in a secular court. Even Moses advanced no such argument to justify his judicial backlog.
June 30, 1968 marked the end of term for the former Court of Appeals. Thereafter, with nothing pending, all judicial power of the State over the final judgment of the Montgomery Circuit Court terminated. Ex parte Hoback, 44 Ala.App. 613, 217 So.2d 826.
Except for the limited review of a writ of error 1 (or discretionary certiorari), the common law writ of error coram nobis is alone available. Moreover, we express no opinion as to its being open to an escaped convict. So far as we know the Supreme Court of Alabama has never considered this precise question.
1 Code 1940, T. 15, § 383 reads:
'A writ of error on any judgment rendered in a criminal case may issue on an order to that effect by any one of the judges of the supreme court or the court of appeals in vacation, or by the supreme court or the court of appeals in term time, addressed to the clerk of the court in which the judgment was rendered; but such writ must only be granted on some error of law apparent on the transcript of the record.'
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. State
...State courts keep cases for redecision. However, in the fauna of our jurisprudence 'there ain't such an animal.' See Ex parte Hammonds, 45 Ala.App. 468, 231 So.2d 922. In the absence of legislation, we see no occasion for artificial insemination to procreate a juridical In 1970, confronted ......
-
Malone v. State of Ala.
...sought. Wade v. State, 51 Ala.App. 441, 286 So.2d 317 (1973); Hines v. State, 48 Ala.App. 297, 264 So.2d 218 (1972); Ex Parte Hammonds, 45 Ala.App. 468, 231 So.2d 922 (1970); Ex Parte Hoback, 44 Ala.App. 613, 217 So.2d 826 (1969).3 Mr. Malone does not contend that he was unaware of his righ......
-
Symanowski v. State, CR-90-1161
...no fault of his own. See Longmire v. State; Campbell v. State, 435 So.2d 234, 235 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). See also Ex parte Hammonds, 45 Ala.App. 468, 469, 231 So.2d 922, 922 (1970) (wherein the court recognized that " [e]xcept for the limited review of a writ of error (or discretionary certiora......
-
Williams v. State, 7 Div. 142
...by way of the writs of error, certiorari, or error coram nobis. See Ex parte Hoback, 44 Ala.App. 613, 217 So.2d 826; Ex parte Hammonds, 45 Ala.App. 468, 231 So.2d 922, and Code 1940, T. 13, § None of these three writs can examine the term of a sentence set within lawful limits. Apparently t......