Ex parte Lee, 4 Div. 398.

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: LIVINGSTON, Justice.
• Citation: 27 So.2d 147,248 Ala. 246
• Parties: Ex parte LEE.
• Decision Date: 27 June 1946
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 398.

27 So.2d 147

248 Ala. 246

Ex parte LEE.

4 Div. 398.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 27, 1946

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1946.

[248 Ala. 247] C. L. Hybart and R. L. Jones, both of Monroeville, for petitioner. [27 So.2d 148]

Wm. N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LIVINGSTON, Justice.

This is a petition by Huey R. Lee, Jr., by his next friend L. D. Turberville, for leave to petition the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, where he was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment, for a writ of error coram nobis to review that judgment. The judgment of conviction having been here affirmed (Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 343, 20 So.2d 471), the procedure is proper. Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391, 13 So.2d 383, 686.

As stated in Johnson v. Williams, supra, such application should make an adequate showing of the substantiality of the petitioner's claim to the satisfaction of this Court: a mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of the specific facts relied upon, and not merely conclusions as to the nature and effect of such facts. The proof must enable this Court to 'ascertain [248 Ala. 248] whether under settled principles pertaining to such writ the facts alleged would afford at least 'prima facie just grounds for an application to the lower court for a writ of error coram nobis.' And in the exercise of our discretion in matters of this character, this Court should look to the reasonableness of the allegations of the petition and to the existence of the probability of the truth thereof. The Supreme Court of the United States in Hysler v. State of Florida, 315 U.S. 411 [316 U.S. 642], 62 S.Ct. 688, 691, 86 L.Ed. 932, said that 'each state may decide for itself, whether, after guilt has been determined by the ordinary processes of trial and affirmed on appeal, a later challenge to its essential justice must come in the first instance, or even in the last instance, before a bench of judges rather than before a jury', and that the procedure outlined above, which we have adopted from the Florida Court, meets the requirements of the due process clause of the Constitution.'

We take it that the petition, together with the State's answer, establish the following facts:

Huey R. Lee, Jr., was indicted, tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama, Clayton Division, on the charge of having murdered his father, Huey R. Lee, Sr., and sentenced to be imprisoned in the penitentiary of Alabama for a term of his natural life. An appeal was prosecuted to this Court where the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. See, 20 So.2d 471. Huey R. Lee, Sr., was killed on either the 5th or 6th day of July, 1942. On July 20, 1942, and under and by virtue of the provisions of section 426, Title 15, Code of 1940, an inquisition as to the sanity of Huey R. Lee, Jr., was tried by a jury in the Circuit Court of Barbour County, in which proceedings the Hon. J. S. Williams, judge of said court, presided. The jury returned the following verdict: 'We the jury find the defendant to be sane.' Thereafter, on the 20th day of October, 1942, the grand jury of Barbour County returned an indictment against Huey R. Lee, Jr., charging him with murder in the first degree. On October 22, 1942, the sheriff of Barbour County reported to the Hon. J. S. Williams, judge of the Circuit Court of Barbour County, that Huey R. Lee, Jr., was confined by him in...