Ex parte Weeks
| Citation | 611 So.2d 259 |
| Parties | Ex parte Kenneth Earl WEEKS, Jr. (In re State of Alabama v. Kenneth Earl Weeks, Jr.) 1911586. |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1992 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Phillip B. Price, Sr., Huntsville, for petitioner.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Kenneth Earl Weeks, Jr., was convicted in the Morgan County District Court for driving without a license and driving while under the influence of alcohol. He appealed those convictions to the Morgan County Circuit Court for a trial de novo before a jury, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, §§ 12-12-70(b) and 12-12-71. The circuit court dismissed Weeks's appeal when he failed to appear for trial. After an unsuccessful attempt to get the circuit court to set aside its order dismissing his appeal, Weeks petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus requiring the circuit court to reinstate his appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied the writ, without an opinion. Weeks then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus, pursuant to Rule 21(e), A.R.App.P., arguing that we should direct the circuit court to reinstate his appeal because, he says, he did not receive notice of the scheduled trial date and, therefore, the dismissal of his appeal constituted a denial of his right to procedural due process of law.
The pertinent facts are set out in the following affidavit filed by Weeks:
Procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901, broadly speaking, contemplates the rudimentary requirements of fair play, which include a fair and open hearing before a legally constituted court or other authority, with notice and the opportunity to present evidence and argument, representation by counsel, if desired, and information as to the claims of the opposing party, with reasonable opportunity to controvert them. See Pike v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 263 Ala. 59, 81 So.2d 254 (1955); Vernon v. State, 245 Ala. 633, 18 So.2d 388 (1944). It is generally understood that an opportunity for a hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal upon proper notice is one of the essential elements of due process. 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 839 (1979), citing Alabama...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
... ... are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo.' Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001). 'If the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not ... City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, [498] U.S. [882], 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 ... ...
-
State v. Martin
... ... Terry Jean Jackson, that she had observed the gas can in the hatchback car that was ultimately burned, and this observation was made just a few weeks before that event. He also heard Assistant Attorney General Valeska make strong argument in closing that there was no gas can and that it was simply ... " Ex parte Weeks , 611 So.2d 259, 261 (Ala. 1992)." State v. Harwell , 85 So.3d 481, 483 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Smith , 23 So.3d 1172, ... ...
-
Mashburn v. State
... ... Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala.2001). However, where there are disputed facts in a postconviction proceeding and the circuit court resolves those ... Relying on Ex parte Fountain, 842 So.2d 726 (Ala.2001), and Ex parte Weeks, 611 So.2d 259 (Ala.1992), this Court held that Presley had been denied due process when he did not receive notice of the court's pretrial orders ... ...
-
Ingram v. State, No. CR-03-1707 (Ala. Crim. App. 9/29/2006)
... ... are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo .' Ex parte White , 792 So. 2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001). `If the circuit court is correct for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not ... City of Bessemer City, N.C. , 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State , 584 So. 2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Weeks v. State , 568 So. 2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, [498] U.S. [882], 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State , 551 So. 2d ... ...