McLeod v. State
| Citation | 415 So.2d 1232 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 24 |
| Parties | Jackie McLEOD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James R. Fugua, Ozark, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by an indigent from an order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis.
In 1976, appellant entered pleas of guilty to two separate indictments charging a total of eight forgery offenses and two burglary offenses. On September 4, 1979, appellant filed a "Motion to Vacate Sentences and Dismiss Indictment" with the circuit court. After an evidentiary hearing on March 17, 1980, the trial court subsequently denied the motion.
On January 19, 1982, appellant filed the coram nobis petition which is the subject of this appeal. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, ruling that appellant had previously been afforded a hearing in 1980.
Although appellant's "Motion to Vacate Sentence and Dismiss Indictment" is not part of the record, it appears from the transcript of the hearing on that motion (which is a part of the record), that the issues in 1980 were (1) whether appellant's confessions were coerced; and (2) whether a letter purportedly written by a Dale County law enforcement officer to the State Pardons and Paroles Board recommending an early parole for appellant because he was "not guilty" of the offenses entitled him to a new trial.
Appellant's coram nobis petition reasserts the same issues determined in March, 1980, along with a further allegation that, at the time of his guilty pleas, his court-appointed counsel was ineffective because he had had a conflict of interest as a part-time city prosecutor or city judge.
Former Supreme Court Rule 50, which has now been superseded by the Rules of Appellate Procedure, provided the following:
(quoted in Rickard v. State, 44 Ala.App. 281, 207 So.2d 422 (1968). Although former Rule 50 is no longer the law, the policy underlying it is still valid. If a petitioner may not assert as grounds for a coram nobis petition facts he knew or should have known at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lawhorn v. State
...denied, 483 U.S. 1010, 107 S.Ct. 3242, 97 L.Ed.2d 746 (1987); Boatwright v. State, 494 So.2d 929 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); McLeod v. State, 415 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). The procedural bars set forth in Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., apply in death cases. Tarver, 629 So.2d at 19. See Horsley v. State......
-
Best v. Richie, CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-00257-KD-N
...Jackson v. State, 501 So. 2d 542 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986); Boatwright v. State, 494 So. 2d 929 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986); McLeod v. State, 415 So. 2d 1232 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). Therefore, this claim is not properly before this Court for review. Moreover, this claim is refuted by the record, wh......
-
Peoples v. Campbell
...is based upon case law which was in existence at the time of [petitioner's] 1986 coram nobis petition.") (citing McLeod v. State, 415 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Ala.Crim.App.1982)). 60. Peoples initially contended that Short afforded him ineffective assistance by failing to bring these instances of ......
-
Jackson v. State
...may not raise in brief on appeal from denial of a petition matters which he did not even allege in his petition." See McLeod v. State, 415 So.2d 1232 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Boatwright v. State, 494 So.2d 929 Additionally, this issue is also barred from review by coram nobis because there was no......