Pinkard v. State
| Citation | 859 So.2d 449 |
| Parties | Tommy PINKARD v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 March 2003 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Tommy Pinkard, pro se.
Andrew W. Redd, gen. counsel, and Jane LeCroy Brannan, asst. atty. gen., Alabama Department of Corrections.
Tommy Pinkard filed a petition in the Limestone Circuit Court in which he challenged his classification by the Department of Corrections ("DOC") as a heinous offender. Throughout the record, Pinkard sometimes refers to the petition filed in the circuit court as one for a writ of certiorari and other times as one for a writ of habeas corpus. The claim raised is properly addressed in a petition for a writ of certiorari; however, the circuit court treated it as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He argued that the statute pursuant to which he was so classified is "vague and overbroad" and that the facts of his offense did not warrant his classification as a heinous offender. DOC moved to dismiss, arguing that Pinkard does not have a liberty interest in a particular security classification and that he was classified according to DOC's classification procedures. The DOC included with its motion the affidavit of Paul Whaley II, the director of classification for DOC. In his affidavit, Whaley stated that Pinkard has not been classified as a heinous offender, but rather that he is barred from participating in the work-release program for the following reasons: (1) the elements of a carjacking were present in his theft-of-property offense and (2) the victim of his robbery offense was cut on the neck with a knife during the robbery. The trial court thereafter denied Pinkard's petition for the reasons argued by DOC.1 Pinkard then filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, arguing that his appointed counsel had failed to adequately represent him. The trial court denied that motion, and Pinkard appealed.
In his brief to this Court, Pinkard argues three claims:
The trial court is correct in its determination that an inmate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McConico v. ALABAMA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS
...maintains its headquarters in Montgomery County, Boykins's petition should have been filed in Montgomery County. See Pinkard v. State, 859 So.2d 449 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Cox v. State, 628 So.2d 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Accordingly, on remand the Bullock Circuit Court should transfer Boykin......
-
Ex Parte Daniels
...See, e.g., Ex parte Madison County, 406 So.2d 398 (Ala.1981); Hartley v. State, 882 So.2d 869 (Ala.Civ.App.2003); and Pinkard v. State, 859 So.2d 449 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). In Ex parte Madison County, the plaintiffs filed in the Madison Circuit Court a declaratory-judgment action against the ......
-
EX PARTE DJB
... ... The motion asserted that the husband had been adjudicated the father of the minor child and that the husband's petition failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The answer generally denied the allegations of the husband's petition and also asserted that the petition ... ...
-
Edwards v. State
...for a writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle for challenging the administrative decision of a state agency." Pinkard v. State, 859 So.2d 449, 450 (Ala. Crim.App.2003). Here, the appellant should have filed his claims in a petition for writ of certiorari. Although mislabeling a petition do......