McMillian v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 864 |
| Citation | 594 So.2d 1289 |
| Parties | Walter McMILLIAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court.
Bryan A. Stevenson, Montgomery, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Prior report: Ala., 594 So.2d 1288.
ON REMAND FROM THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT
The appellant, Walter McMillian, alleges, by way of a A.R.Crim.P. 32 petition filed in the trial court, that a key state witness has recanted his trial testimony and that, consequently, the appellant's conviction was obtained by the use of perjured testimony. He further asserts that this evidence is newly discovered. Upon motion by the state, the Alabama Supreme Court, without opinion, has ordered that the petition for writ of certiorari be stayed pending an evidentiary hearing on the appellant's claim and has remanded the case to this court with instructions that we remand it to the trial court for such a hearing.
We, therefore, remand this case to the trial court with instructions that that court conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the appellant's conviction was obtained by perjured testimony as the appellant avers in his Rule 32 petition. Upon completion of the hearing, the circuit clerk shall make due return regarding all proceedings, along with a transcript of the hearing, to this court. The trial court shall take all action directed in sufficient time to permit the circuit clerk to make a proper return to this court at the earliest possible time within 45 days of the release of this opinion. Upon completion of the proceedings, the appellant's Rule 32 petition should be dismissed, because, by agreement of the parties, the issue raised in the petition will be considered as a part of this appeal.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
All Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyson v. State
... ... Brakefield, 534 So.2d 602 (Ala.1988) .'" ... Jackson v. State, 674 So.2d 1318, 1348 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 674 So.2d 1365 (Ala.1994), on remand, 674 So.2d 1370 (Ala.Cr.App.), after remand, 674 So.2d 1370 (Ala.Cr.App.1995), quoting McMillian v. State, 594 So.2d 1253, 1261 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), remanded, 594 So.2d 1288 (Ala.), on remand, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), after remand, 616 So.2d 933 (Ala.Cr.App.1993) ... Here, a review of the transcript reveals that the information defense counsel sought to ... ...
- Giles v. Culliver
-
Giles v. State
... ... However, the record indicates that the appellant offered no evidence to support this claim and, therefore, has failed to establish a prima facie violation of the fair cross-section requirement of the constitution. See McMillian v. State, 594 So.2d 1253 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), remanded, 594 So.2d 1288 (Ala.1992), on remand, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The trial court properly denied the appellant's claim ... The appellant also argues that a black juror was improperly excused, on the ground that she was ... ...
-
McMillian v. State
...because the disposition of the perjury issue raised in the petition would be considered as part of the instant appeal. McMillian v. State, 594 So.2d 1289 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). The trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing as instructed, and, in the interest of judicial economy, properly re......