Mayola v. State, 6 Div. 198
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | TYSON; CATES, P.J., and HARRIS; TYSON; CATES, P.J., and HARRIS |
| Citation | 337 So.2d 105 |
| Parties | Michael A. MAYOLA v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 198 |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1976 |
Page 105
v.
STATE.
Rehearing Denied June 1, 1976.
William W. Rogers, Bessemer, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joel E. Dillard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
TYSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of the petition of error coram nobis wherein the appellant sought to set aside his conviction on a charge of kidnapping wherein he entered a plea of guilty on January 25, 1963, without counsel and without waiving counsel.
The then District Attorney testified that he had no recollection as to whether or not counsel was offered the appellant or that one would be appointed for him. The then Circuit Judge had a recollection of the appellant appearing before him but could not remember whether or not the appellant was offered counsel.
The Circuit Clerk testified that according to his records no counsel was shown of record for the appellant at the time he entered his guilty plea in this case.
In Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319, we find the following:
'. . . Gideon v. Wainwright (372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799) established the rule that the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment was applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth, making it unconstitutional to try a person for a felony in a state court unless he had a lawyer or had validly waived one. And that ruling was not limited to prospective applications. . . .'
Moreover, in this cause there was no showing that the appellant had counsel at the time of his arraignment or of his appearance
Page 106
for trial. Tucker v. State, 42 Ala.App. 174, 157 So.2d 229, cert. denied,275 Ala. 700, 157 So.2d 229, fully establishes the requirement of counsel at arraignment in all felony cases citing Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114, and Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799. Beyond question this right is retrospective. Barnes v. State, 42 Ala.App. 504, 169 So.2d 313, cert. denied, 277 Ala. 695,169 So.2d 313. Burgett v. Texas, supra.Likewise, coram nobis is the appropriate State remedy to raise the alleged denial or lack of counsel at arraignment and at trial. Brown v. State, 42 Ala.App. 690, 17 So.2d 504, cert. denied with opinion, 277 Ala. 353, 170 So.2d 504. See also Pate v. Holman, 5 Cir., 341 F.2d 764; Williams v. Alabama, 5 Cir., 341 F.2d 777, and cases therein cited.
It is equally well settled that the lack of counsel at the time of taking a plea of guilty may also be raised by appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayola v. State, 6 Div. 372
...conviction of kidnapping was reversed by this court because of lack of counsel at his arraignment. Mayola v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 105 (1976). Perhaps the appellant has these cases confused in his own Absent from his petition for the writ of error coram nobis is an allegation that t......
-
Thompson v. State, 6 Div. 352
...forum for attacking the validity of a prior conviction would be by a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See Mayola v. State, 337 So.2d 105 The State gave adequate proof of the appellant's convictions and that they were proper convictions. Each conviction was properly considered by th......
-
McConico v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...remedy available for a criminal defendant was by filing a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See, e.g., Mayola v. State, 337 So.2d 105 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 337 So.2d 107 (Ala.1976) (recognizing the writ of error coram nobis as a means of postconviction review). Thus, our ju......
-
Scott v. State, 1 Div. 535
...forum for attacking the validity of a prior conviction would be by a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See Mayola v. State, 337 So.2d 105 Jones v. State, 431 So.2d 1367 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Furthermore, we find that the State gave proper notice and offered adequate proof of the appell......