Phillips v. State
| Decision Date | 03 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 87 |
| Parties | Earl PHILLIPS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Earl Phillips pro se.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Jerry L. Coe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from an order of the court below granting the State's motion to dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, and ordering the petitioner to be returned to the custody of the warden of Kilby Prison, there to remain until discharged by due process of law.
In the petition it is asserted that the petitioner's 'confinement in the penitentiary per se is not the basic issue of this petition; that the basic issue concerns not the confinement alone but rather the cruel, unusual, and excessive punishment which is being inflicted upon him during his confinement in the Segregation Unit of Kilby Prison.'
In the petition it is asserted that the petitioner (a) has sought treatment for chest pains and eye strain, but has been ignored by the resident physician, and has not been given a chest x-ray within three years; (b) that there is a lack of proper ventilation in the segregation cells; (c) that he does not receive an adequate diet in that the prisoners in the segregation cells receive only two meals a day, whereas the general prison population receives three meals a day; (d) that he asserts before and after receiving visitors a guard is in attendance during his visitor's stay causing embarrassment to his visitors, and humiliation to the petitioner; (e) that the general inmates in Kilby Prison are allowed to write three letters each week, but that prisoners in the segregation unit are limited to one letter a week, and that his incoming and outgoing letters are censored, though with the petitioner's written permission; (f) that petitioner is confined with other prisoners 'who by their irrational nature and insane behavior caused him much mental distress and loss of sleep' and that such a condition caused petitioner such an emotional state of mind as to endanger his sanity.
By Sections 1 and 24, Tit. 15, and Sections 3 and 11, Tit. 45, Code of Alabama 1940, the prison system of Alabama, and the operation thereof, is placed under the administration of the Board of Corrections.
As stated in Edmondson v. Warden of Md., 194 Md. 707, 69 A.2d 919, 920, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Looney v. State
...in this case for the claim of illegal conditions of confinement, if proved, would not be release from custody. Phillips v. State, 41 Ala.App. 393, 133 So.2d 512 (1961); Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir.1979), revising 592 F.2d 248 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. ......
-
Taylor v. State, 5 Div. 847
...in this case for the claim of illegal conditions of confinement, if proved, would not be release from custody. Phillips v. State, 41 Ala.App. 393, 133 So.2d 512 (1961); Cook v. Hanberry, 596 F.2d 658 (5th Cir.1979), revising 592 F.2d 248 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. ......
-
Artrip v. State, 3 Div. 91
...punishment, we have recently held, is a matter cognizable, certainly in the first instance, by the Board of Corrections. Phillips v. State, Ala.App., 133 So.2d 512. These punishments whether involving degrees of isolation or corporal chastisement are within the discretion of the Legislature......
-
Jenkins v. Brignac
... ... Payne v. Prestridge, 16 La.App. 479, 133 So.2d 512; Marler v. State, La.App., 78 So.2d 26; Gautreaux v. Southern Farm Bureau Gas Co., La.App., 83 So.2d 667; Ehtor v. Parish, La.App., 86 So.2d 543 ... ...