Morning v. State, 6 Div. 799
| Decision Date | 29 June 1982 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 799 |
| Citation | 416 So.2d 780 |
| Parties | Andre MORNING v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George H. Jones, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Leura J. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of theft in the second degree and sentencing him to imprisonment for ten years. The trial was without a jury and, according to the judgment entry, consisted of a "hearing on stipulation of facts as to the testimony of the State's witnesses," which stipulation was to the effect that if the witnesses were to appear there would be sufficient evidence to present a prima facie case of defendant's guilt. No point is raised as to the sufficiency of the stipulation.
Appellant's only insistence on a reversal is that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to the effect that the case be dismissed and defendant discharged therein by reason of the failure of the State to bring the defendant to trial within 90 days after receipt of a written request of defendant for a "final disposition of any untried indictment ... pending against him in this State," as set forth in Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-9-82 (1981 Cum.Supp.). Appellant argues that a dismissal of the instant case is mandated by Code § 15-9-84 (1981 Cum.Supp.), which provides in pertinent part:
Appellant's contention constitutes an effort on his part to require compliance with Code §§ 15-9-82 and 15-9-84, Code of Ala. 1975 (1981 Cum.Supp.), even though no other section nor any part of Chapter 9 of the Code of Alabama of 1975 is applicable to the facts in the instant case. The chapter deals with the overall subject of Fugitives From Justice. The sections of the Code relied upon by appellant constitute a codification of Acts 1978, No. 590, §§ 3 and 5, Acts 1978, No. 590, is the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, and it relates exclusively to problems pertaining to interstate extradition. The sections of the Code relied upon are utterly irrelevant to a prisoner in Alabama unless a territory or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. State
...United States v. Dixon, 592 F.2d 329 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 951, 99 S.Ct. 2179, 60 L.Ed.2d 1056 (1979); Morning v. State, 416 So.2d 780 (Ala. Crim.App.1982). In either case, the provisions of the Agreement are applicable only when a participating jurisdiction, having untried cha......
-
Turner v. State
...Lowery v. State, 452 So.2d 897, 898 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Tyree v. State, 439 So.2d 1346, 1348 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Morning v. State, 416 So.2d 780, 781 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Those cases are specifically overruled to the extent that they conflict with our present The judgment of the circuit court i......
-
Ex parte Springer
...24 (Ala.1984); Lowery v. State, 452 So.2d 897 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Tyree v. State, 439 So.2d 1346 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Morning v. State, 416 So.2d 780 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); McAlpin v. State, 397 So.2d 209 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 211 Article IV, § 45, Ala. Const.1901, provides the fo......
-
Twyman v. State
...charged with a crime by another jurisdiction (i.e., between states or between a state and the federal government). Morning v. State, 416 So.2d 780, 781 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Contrarily, the appellant's claim that he was unreasonably detained and prejudiced, even though he was a prisoner in the......