Ex parte Phillips
| Decision Date | 27 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 126 |
| Parties | Ex parte Earl PHILLIPS, Alias. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Earl Phillips, pro se.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This proceeding purports to be a petition for writ of mandamus against the Court of Appeals of Alabama. It is so labeled and styled by petitioner. However, the petitioner prays that 'this Honorable Court will forthwith cause the writ of mandamus to issue, directed to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, commanding it to hear and adjudicate said petition for writ of error coram nobis without further unlawful delay.'
On mandamus, we do not direct courts to take action when those courts are not parties to the mandamus proceeding. Here, the respondent is the Court of Appeals and not the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, and the petition therefore is without merit.
This proceeding involves a second petition for writ of error coram nobis filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County. A petition for mandamus was filed in the Court of Appeals to require the circuit court to act on the petition, and then this petition was filed in this court.
The Court of Appeals, through the Attorney General, has filed a motion to strike the petition. While the motion does not raise the point discussed supra, it does show the following:
1. Petitioner was indicted, tried and convicted in 1952 in two cases of robbery and was sentenced to eighteen years in the penitentiary in each case. He was represented by counsel and did not appeal.
2. In 1962, petitioner filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in Jefferson County Circuit Court. He was represented by counsel and the petitions were denied on August 9, 1962. Appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals and the cases were affirmed, Phillips v. State, 152 So.2d 148 and 152 So.2d 150. Certiorari was denied by this court, 275 Ala. 698, 150 So.2d 150, and also denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 375 U.S. 865, 84 S.Ct. 138, 11 L.Ed.2d 92.
In the absence of a petition containing cogent and compelling reasons why all the grounds relied upon were not included in the first petition for writ of error coram nobis, which has been determined, we will not order a court to entertain or hear a second coram nobis petition relating to the same conviction.
The motion to strike is granted.
Application for writ of mandamus stricken.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Jones
...law. See Ex parte Cox, 451 So.2d 235, 238-39 (Ala.1983); Waldon v. State, 284 Ala. 608, 227 So.2d 122, 123 (1969); Ex parte Phillips, 277 Ala. 82, 167 So.2d 165, 166 (1964). Thus, at the time Hill filed his 1985 petition, Alabama's successive petition rule existed only in its common law for......
-
Mills v. State, 6 Div. 169
...of the original petition for writ of error coram nobis, is without merit, and the State's motion to strike is well taken. Ex Parte Phillips, 277 Ala. 82, 167 So.2d 165. Motion LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur. ...
-
Vintson v. State, 6 Div. 26
...also Andrews v. State, 278 Ala. 434, 435, 178 So.2d 827 (1965); Isbell v. State, 277 Ala. 256, 169 So.2d 20 (1964); Ex Parte Phillips, 277 Ala. 82, 83, 167 So.2d 165 (1964). Although the record indicates that Vintson was not given an evidentiary hearing on his first petition, his second pet......
-
Andrews v. State, 57
...solemn judgment that these grounds 'are the same grounds previously ruled upon by' that court. We repeat what we said in Ex parte Phillips, 277 Ala. 82, 167 So.2d 165: 'In the absence of a petition containing cogent and compelling reasons why all the grounds relied upon were not included in......