Morrow v. State, CR-94-2116
Decision Date | 29 December 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-94-2116 |
Citation | 675 So.2d 89 |
Parties | John MORROW v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Morrow, pro se.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Jack Willis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant, John Morrow, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The appellant, an inmate at Fountain Correctional Center, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that he is being unlawfully denied a reduction in the time he is required to be in custody because an outstanding detainer is pending against him in Florida. Specifically, the appellant contends that there has been no final disposition of the detainer filed against him in Florida as required by the Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act, § 15-9-80 et seq., Code of Alabama 1975.
The state filed a motion to dismiss, stating:
The court correctly granted the state's motion to dismiss. Article I of the Agreement of Detainers, contained in § 15-9-81, states:
(Emphasis added.)
In the current case, the record reflects that the detainer filed against the appellant was for a probation violation. The Uniform Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Act does not apply to probation proceedings. Article I clearly states that it pertains...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stephenson v. State
...or complaints pending against an inmate in another state for which there has not been a final disposition. See Morrow v. State, 675 So.2d 89 (Ala.Crim.App.1995); Gillard, supra. Although this court has held that the UMDDA does not apply to parole revocation hearings, probation revocation he......
- Washington v. State, CR-95-1941