Mathis v. State

Citation281 Ala. 424,203 So.2d 442
Decision Date26 October 1967
Docket Number4 Div. 298
PartiesClarence MATHIS v. STATE of Alabama.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Clarence Mathis, pro se.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Houston County dismissing a petition for writ of error coram nobis after hearing.

Petitioner was indicted for robbery and warrant for his arrest bears date of May 18, 1943. On July 17, 1943 it was made known to the court that defendant was unable to employ counsel, and the court thereupon appointed competent counsel to represent defendant on the trial. On July 19, 1943, defendant appeared before the court accompanied by his counsel. The indictment being read to him, defendant pleaded not guilty. His case was set for trial July 22, 1943, and the defendant in open court before the court together with his counsel withdrew his plea of not guilty interposed on arraignment in the case and pleaded guilty of robbery. A jury thereupon rendered its verdict finding defendant guilty of robbery and fixing his punishment at imprisonment for thirty-five years. There were judgment and sentence accordingly.

The clerk of the Circuit Court and the attorney representing defendant on the main trial testified as withnesses for the State. A copy of a sheet of the trial docket, duly authenticated, was introduced in evidence, disclosing the proceedings above noted.

The Circuit Court in the present coram nobis proceeding appointed counsel to represent the petitioner after the petition had been filed with request for counsel. The grounds of the petition are that he was not adequately represented by this appointed counsel in the main trial, that he was not arraigned and that the appointed counsel 'plead him guilty'. Except for the bare conclusions of the petition these grounds are not sustained. The defendant alone testified in support of the petition. His evidence is itself contradictory. This proceeding was instituted some 24 years after the trial in which appellant was convicted. There is nothing to show any reason or excuse for the long delay in seeking any relief. As we held in Butler v. State, 279 Ala. 311, 184 So.2d 823, so great a lapse of time brings about the death or removal of the principal actors in the trial and, we may add, impairs the value and verity of the memory of witnesses of lesser but important incidental details. The writ of error coram nobis is not intended to relieve a party from his own negligence. Butler v. State, supra; Allison v. State, 273 Ala. 223, 137 So.2d 761, cert. den. 369 U.S. 856, 82 S.Ct. 946, 8 L.Ed.2d 15.

As we have noted above the allegation that the plea...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Mayola v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 8, 1977
    ...at the time of trial when he had full knowledge of the facts. Hopkins v. State, 57 Ala.App. 78, 326 So.2d 144 (1975); Mathis v. State, 281 Ala. 424, 203 So.2d 442 (1967). The existence of widespread publicity alone does not indicate that the accused will not get a fair trial. Publicity by p......
  • Pitts v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 30, 1978
    ...and he must bear the burden for the deception. This, in itself, constitutes grounds for denying the petition. Mathis v. State, 281 Ala. 424, 203 So.2d 442 (1967); Butler v. State, 279 Ala. 311, 184 So.2d 823 (1966). Effective representation and defense demands that a client disclose all kno......
  • Passmore v. State, 4 Div. 240
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 30, 1973
    ...by way of coram nobis. Thornburg v. State, 42 Ala.App. 70, 152 So.2d 442; Ex parte Taylor, 249 Ala. 667, 32 So.2d 659; Mathis v. State, 281 Ala. 424, 203 So.2d 442. A careful search of the record as required by Title 15, § 389, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, reveals no error and thi......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 13, 1969
    ...276 Ala. 427, 163 So.2d 212; Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486; Andrews v. State, 278 Ala. 434, 178 So.2d 827; Mathis v. State, 281 Ala. 424, 203 So.2d 442. Affirmed and request for counsel on appeal LIVINGSTON, C.J., and LAWSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT