Roberts v. State, 8 Div. 848
| Decision Date | 13 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 848 |
| Citation | 516 So.2d 936 |
| Parties | Raymond ROBERTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dan C. Totten, of Malone & Totten, Athens, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Jean Williams Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Roberts appeals from the trial court's summary judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, filed March 10, 1987, Roberts challenges the constitutionality of 13 disciplinary proceedings which occurred between January 20, 1978, and December 17, 1984, and resulted in the loss of 82 months' good time. He asserts that the institutional officers took disciplinary action against him without providing him with a constitutionally sufficient statement of reasons for their action and the evidence upon which they relied.
In denying Roberts's petition, the trial court rendered an order which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
Although we find that the court's ruling was improperly based on the two specified grounds, 1 we affirm the court's denial on our finding that Roberts's petition was not properly verified as required by Alabama Code (1975), § 15-21-4. See Mead v. State, 449 So.2d 1279 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); O'Such v. State, 423 So.2d 317 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). "If the ruling of the trial court is correct for any reason, it will not be reversed." Mead v. State, 449 So.2d at 1280. Accordingly, this cause is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.
1 In reviewing Roberts' claim that the court's order was erroneous as to 7 of the 13 disciplinaries, we consider the first ground of denial--the operation of laches--to be insufficient, for the prosecution did not meet the requirements of Mayola v. State of Alabama, 623 F.2d 992 (5th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 913, 101 S.Ct. 1986, 68 L.Ed.2d 303 (1981). As stated in Mayola:
"A petition for habeas corpus may be dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches ... if (1) the petitioner has delayed unreasonably in the filing of his petition, and (2) the state can demonstrate that it has suffered actual prejudice from the delay in its ability to respond to the grounds upon which habeas corpus is sought."
623 F.2d at 999. Although Roberts's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...this Court must affirm a trial court's denial of a postconviction petition if the ruling is correct for any reason. Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 I. Brown initially argues that he was denied his right to exercise his peremptory strikes, h......
-
Pierce v. State
...App.1998); Long v. State, 675 So.2d 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Cr.App.1994); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Cr. App.1987). Because all of the appellant's claims are either precluded or lack merit, th......
-
Harris v. State
...for any reason, even though it may not be the stated reason, we will not reverse its denial of the petition. See Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Cr. App.1987)." Reed v. State, 748 So.2d 231, 233 As in her petition, Harris first claims on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying r......
-
Davis v. State
...Swicegood v. State, 646 So.2d 159 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); Kilgore v. State, 643 So.2d 1015 (Ala.Crim. App.1993); Roberts v. State, 516 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Jenkins v. State, 516 So.2d 935 (Ala.Crim.App.1987). As the Alabama Supreme Court has stated: "Although the appellate courts wil......
-
Procedure trumps justice: judicial inactivism in Alabama and its unjust result.
...Crim. App. 1997). (62) See Barbour, 903 So. 2d at 861; Reed v. Alabama, 748 So 2d 231,233 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999); Roberts v. Alabama, 516 So. 2d 936 (Ala. Crim. App. (63) Barbour, 903 So. 2d 858, 862 (quoting United States v. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948): "[A] finding is clearly err......