Mills v. State, 6 Div. 941
| Decision Date | 09 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 941 |
| Citation | 153 So.2d 650,275 Ala. 217 |
| Parties | William R. MILLS v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William R. Mills, pro se.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, which denied appellant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
From petitioner's brief, and matters in the record, we gather that petitioner was convicted in the same court, on October 21, 1959, under an indictment charging that petitioner did carnally know, or abuse in the attempt to carnally know, a girl under the age of twelve years. The girl is a negro. The record indicates that petitioner is a white man. The court sentenced petitioner to be imprisoned for a term of sixty years as fixed by a jury.
The petition for coram nobis charges in general terms that, on his trial in 1959, petitioner was denied rights guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the United States. In the petition, petitioner specifies the denials substantially as follows:
1. That his trial attorney was not effective and adequate during his trial. 2. That he was tried in Tuscaloosa County for an alleged crime 'that was supposed to have happened in Pickens County.'
3. That he was denied witnesses in his behalf.
4. That his court-appointed attorney, the sheriff, and the solicitor informed petitioner that if he said that the alleged crime was in Pickens County they would charge him 'with taking a minor across the County Line.'
5. That counsel, appointed by the court for petitioner, 'did not have the best interests of the petitioner in mind.'
On September 17, 1962, the circuit judge set the petition for hearing on October 25, 1962.
The judgment appealed from recites that on the appointed day, petitioner appeared in court with 'his privately retained attorney'; that petitioner moved the court to appoint an additional attorney; and that the court thereupon appointed an additional attorney who was requested by name by the petitioner; that petitioner and his attorneys petitioned the court for an order requiring that a transcript of the testimony taken on the original trial be prepared and furnished to petitioner; and that the cause was continued to November 19, 1962.
The judgment further recites that on November 19, 1962, the cause came on for hearing, and that the transcript had been furnished to petitioner as ordered by the court. A 94-page transcript of evidence, certified by the court reporter, appears in the record now before us. Although petitioner states in brief: 'This Transcript is False and Void on its face, and should be stricken from the case'; we are of the view that under the certificates set out in this record, the transcript is properly to be regarded as correctly setting out the testimony of the witnesses taken on the 1959 trial.
The indictment was returned April 30, 1959. The judgment of conviction recites that on May 1, 1959, 'comes the defendant in his own proper person and by attorney,' and that defendant, being duly arraigned in open court, pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
The judgment further recites that on October 21, 1959, comes defendant in person and by attorney, and jury, and that defendant is found guilty by the jury and duly adjudged guilty and sentenced by the court.
The judgment further recites that defendant makes known his desire to appeal and that sentence is suspended pending appeal. Petitioner asserts in brief that his 'court appointed attorney tricked him into signing a withdrawal of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. State
...268 Ala. 535, 108 So.2d 454 (perjured testimony); Allison v. State, 273 Ala. 223, 137 So.2d 761 (perjured testimony); Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650 (denial of witnesses, etc.); Dobbins v. State, 275 Ala. 497, 156 So.2d 358 (suppression of evidence; rigged jury); Cooper v. Stat......
-
Taylor v. State
...tactic at the time. Further, conviction of a client does not prove the lack of skill or zeal on the part of counsel. See Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 867, 84 S.Ct. 142, 11 L.ed.2d 95 (1963); Echols v. State, 276 Ala. 489, 164 So.2d 486 (1964); Aldridge......
-
Harris v. State
...Taylor v. State, 291 Ala. 756, 287 So.2d 901 (1973), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 945, 94 S.Ct. 1955, 40 L.Ed.2d 298 (1974); Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650 (1963). III Appellant argues that the lower court improperly restricted the scope of the coram nobis hearing. The result of the ......
-
Bridges v. State
...901 (1973). The conviction of a client does not prove lack of either zeal or skill on the part of defense counsel. Mills v. State, 275 Ala. 217, 153 So.2d 650 (1963). The burden of sustaining a charge of inadequate representation rests on the defendant. Here the defendant did not show that ......