Hartley v. State, 6 Div. 258
Decision Date | 12 June 1973 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 258 |
Citation | 279 So.2d 585,50 Ala.App. 414 |
Parties | Floyd HARTLEY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. Delaine Mountain, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sarah V. Maddox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the
This appeal is from the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. Whether the relief sought would have been more properly within the writ of habeas corpus is unnecessary to decide. Horsley v. State, 42 Ala.App. 567, 172 So.2d 56.
The facts developed at the hearing are that on October 26, 1967, the petitioner was convicted of sodomy (Circuit Court #10067--A) and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Still pending against the petitioner, after the sodomy conviction, were the charges of assault with intent to ravish (#10113--A) and two charges of forgery (#9650--A and #9651--A). On November 17, 1967, petitioner was arraigned for the charge of assault with intent to ravish (#10113--A), where he entered the same pleas he had entered in the sodomy case, not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. On December 7, 1967, the State petitioned the court to have Hartley examined and observed at Bryce Hospital to ascertain whether he was a criminal sexual psychopathic person within the meaning of Tit. 15, § 434(a), Code of Alabama 1940, 1971 Cum.Supp. On December 11, 1967, the court granted the State's petition and ordered Hartley sent to Bryce Hospital for a mental evaluation. For some unexplained reason, while petitioner was in Bryce Hospital his commitment papers in the sodomy conviction had been sent to the Board of Corrections. Since the petitioner was at Bryce Hospital and had not yet been imprisoned in the State penitentiary, the Board of Corrections on January 15, 1968, returned the commitment papers to the Circuit Court Clerk's Office in Tuscaloosa County. After the return of the commitment papers to the clerk's office, they were inadvertently misplaced and not discovered until December 5, 1969. On January 18, 1968, the mental evaluation of the petitioner revealed he was not a criminal sexual psychopathic person; thus, he was returned on that date to stand trial on the remaining charges against him.
On February 9, 1968, after his return from Bryce Hospital, petitioner changed his pleas of not guilty to pleas of guilty and was sentenced to two years for assault with intent to ravish (#10113--A), and two years and two days on two forgery charges (#9650--A and #9651--A). These sentences were to run concurrently. The petitioner was sent to the penitentiary in February, 1968; but was released on July 23, 1969, and told that he had no additional time. On this point petitioner testified as follows:
'THE WITNESS: That's right, 23rd day of July of '69, I got out of the penitentiary.
On November 17, 1969, he was arrested for robbery (#896--B) and possession of a pistol by a felon. At this time it was discovered that the commitment papers in the sodomy conviction (#10067--A) had not been returned to the Board of Corrections. On December 31, 1969, the trial judge made the following notation on the docket sheet of the sodomy conviction:
On February 10, 1970, petitioner was found guilty of robbery (#896--B) and sentenced to fifteen years, and on March 2, 1970, the defendant entered a plea of guilty in the charge of carrying a concealed weapon (#902--B) and was given a sentence of two years.
On July 13, 1970, petitioner filed a writ of error coram nobis with the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County. Although not alleged in his original coram nobis petition, it was argued by petitioner during the hearing that it was error in not allowing the time served on the assault conviction (#10113--A) and forgery convictions (#9650--A and #9651--A) to be counted on the sodomy conviction (#10067--A), i.e., that time on these three convictions should run from the date that he was first confined to the State penitentiary, February, 1968. The court denied petitioner's writ and determined that the time for the sodomy conviction (#10067--A) should have begun on July 23, 1969, with the robbery (#896--B) and pistol sentences to follow.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that his sodomy sentence should have commenced at the time of his first confinment. Although not advisable, sentences may be served out of order provided this process does not extend the time a prisoner is otherwise obligated to serve. Scott v. State, 45 Ala.App. 242, 228 So.2d 855; Swanger v. State, 276 Ala. 289, 161 So.2d 491.
Appellant relies on King v. State, 16 Ala.App. 118, 75 So. 710; Blackwell v. State, 19 Ala.App. 553, 99 So. 49. In King the petitioner had been convicted of grand larceny...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. Houston
...14 (Chambers, J., concurring). 43. White, supra note 15; United States v. Merritt, 478 F.Supp. 804 (D.D.C.1979); Hartley v. State, 50 Ala.App. 414, 279 So.2d 585 (1973) (quoting White, supra note 15). 44. Schwichtenberg, supra note 19. 45. Id. at 579, 951 P.2d at 454. 46. Id. 47. In re Roac......
-
Canada v. State, 7 Div. 929
...actual incarceration, see, e.g., Corporate Authorities of Scottsboro v. Johnson, 121 Ala. 397, 25 So. 809 (1899); Hartley v. State, 50 Ala.App. 414, 279 So.2d 585 (1973), those cases were based on the premise that the day on which a defendant is sentenced counts as the first day of his impr......
-
Denson v. State, 7 Div. 181
... ... Inc., a corporation, was burglarized about 6:00 P.M. on February 14, 1970, wherein and at the time two colored males were flushed while they ... ...
-
Ex parte Agee
...as it must, that it was error not to apply those authorities. These are collected and explained in Hartley v. State, 50 Ala.App. 414, 417-418, 279 So.2d 585, 587-588 (1973), whose pertinent part we "Appellant relies on King v. State, 16 Ala.App. 118, 75 So. 710; Blackwell v. State, 19 Ala.A......