Mayton v. State, 4 Div. 295
| Decision Date | 04 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 295 |
| Citation | 52 Ala.App. 626,296 So.2d 249 |
| Parties | Dwight MAYTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Kenneth Cooper, Bay Minette, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John M. Gruenewald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment denying appellant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Actually there were six such petitions but there was a stipulation for consolidation and one decree controls this litigation.
Appellant was arrested on July 2, 1972, on numerous felony charges committed in Covington County. He was fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of these offenses but nine days later, July 11, 1972, he reached the age of sixteen years. He was indicted on some nine or ten felony charges. His cases came on for trial on September 11, 1972. Two outstanding, experienced and prominent lawyers of the Andalusia Bar were appointed to represent him at trial. These lawyers, after a thorough investigation of the facts in these cases, entered into 'plea bargaining' with the District Attorney and an agreement was reached, subject to approval by the court, whereby appellant was to plead guilty to six indictments and receive a sentence of one year and one day on each charge and the State would dismiss all other indictments.
When these facts were made known to the court, the court took great pains to explain to appellant his Boykin rights and determined that the pleas were voluntarily and intelligently made. The court advised appellant of his right to a jury trial, his right to confront his accusers, his right to subpoena witnesses in his behalf, and the permissible range of sentences. The court, however, failed to advise him of his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is the first right outlined in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274, and would have been fatal to the judgment of conviction on a direct appeal. There was no appeal from the original judgment of conviction.
The writ of error coram nobis is not intended to provide a review by appeal where the complaining party has not sought to appeal and the time for appeal has long since expired. Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 190 So.2d 542.
During this coram nobis hearing, it was brought out that at the time appellant pleaded guilty to six indictments, he was serving time in the Andalusia City Jail for the violation of certain city ordinances and he was on probation from the Juvenile Court. It does not appear from the record that the inquiries concerning the violation of city ordinances and the juvenile matter was for the purpose of affecting appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. State
...817 (1973); or by showing a violation of a municipal ordinance, Huggins v. State, 271 Ala. 428, 123 So.2d 911 (1960); Mayton v. State, 52 Ala.App. 626, 296 So.2d 249 (1974); Rainey v. State, 48 Ala.App. 530, 266 So.2d 335, cert. denied, 289 Ala. 750, 266 So.2d 340 (1972); or an arrest or co......
-
Arledge v. State, 7 Div. 415
...sought to appeal and the time for appeal has long since expired. Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 190 So.2d 542.' Mayton v. State, 52 Ala.App. 626, p. 627, 296 So.2d 249, p. 250. Facts known to an accused debar him from seeking coram nobis. Eagen v. State, 280 Ala. 438, 194 So.2d 842. The pur......
-
Kilgore v. State
...on direct appeal, we clearly consider that the writ of error coram nobis does not embrace this factual situation. See Mayton v. State, 52 Ala.App. 626, 296 So. 249; Caraway v. State, 53 Ala.App. 237, 298 So.2d 659; and Lewis v. State, 55 Ala.App. 397, 316 So.2d 228. Even though a plurality ......
-
Rogers v. State, 1 Div. 641
...State in its brief claims that coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy where there has been a prior plea of guilty. See Mayton v. State, 52 Ala.App. 626, 296 So.2d 249, and Arledge v. State, (7 Div. 415, 1976) 57 Ala.App. 553, 329 So.2d Every rule is tested by its exceptions. Here we have ......