Seals v. State
| Citation | 276 Ala. 654,165 So.2d 742 |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 209 |
| Parties | Willie SEALS, Jr. v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Vernon Z. Crawford, Mobile, and Martin R. Bradley, Jr., Buffalo, N. Y., for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Leslie Hall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is form an order denying a petition for a free transcript of the case in which petitioner was sentenced to a term of life in the penitentiary. The prayer of the petition was made 'pursuant to (Title 15, Section 380(8)),' which was repealed four and one-half months before petitioner's adjudication of guilt and over five months before this petition was filed. However, the trial court considered the case under the applicable and pertinent statute, Act No. 525, Acts of 1963, Vol. II, p. 1129, listed in the pocket part of the 1958 Recompiled Code as Tit. 15, § 380(14) et seq.
Section 9 of Act No. 525, listed as Tit. 15, § 380(22), provides that, on appeals from orders denying the petition, the trial judge shall cause to be certified to the Supreme Court (in this case) 'the file of the trial court in said proceedings to obtain a transcript and record, containing the petition and reports made in writing to the court, the reporter's estimate of the cost of the transcript, and the estimate of the clerk of his fees incident to an appeal, and a certified copy of the order or orders entered by the trial court, and other relevant papers pertaining to the petition, together with an opinion or statement of the trial court, as the trial court shall deem necessary.'
All of the requirements of the statute relating to the contents of the file to be presented to this court have been met. It is possible that a transcript of the oral evidence taken on the petition would be helpful to us, but the statute does not require that it be included in the file. The petitioner, in brief, makes no point of the absence of the oral testimony, and we assume that the opinon of the trial court fairly states the evidence at the hearing. The opinion, after stating some preliminary facts, reads:
'The Court having set a hearing on the Motion for March 20, 1964, at which time the Defendant Willie Seals, Jr., was present with one of his attorneys, Honorable Vernon Z. Crawford, and the State of Alabama was represented by Honorable Carl M. Booth, State Solicitor, Mobile County, Alabama, and the Court having heard testimony and argument in support of and contrary to said Motion, and having taken same under consideration:
'The Court is of the opinion that the Petition refers to Title 15, Sections 380(1) to 380(13), when in fact that said provision has been amended by Act No. 525, approved September 16, 1963, as contained in Volume II, Acts of Alabama, 1963. The Court has allowed the amendment of said Petition to proceed under this Act.
'The mother of the Defendant has testified that she earns approximately $90 a month and that she owns her home on Railroad Street in Mobile County, Alabama. She further testified that she placed a $2,200 mortgage on this property in 1958, upon which there is a present indebtedness of approximately $1,440. The Court is of the opinion that this real estate would have a total value of approximately $3,500, giving a net equity of around $2,100. Mrs. Seals further testified that she would be willing to sell or mortgage this home if necessary to help her son. There was further testimony that the father of the Defendant draws a Social Security Check of $60 a month; that the Defendant has two brothers, ages twenty and forty, both of whom are in good physical health and one of whom owns his own home at 1250 Railroad Street in Mobile County, Alabama; that the Defendant has two married sisters, ages thirty and thirty-five, both of whom are employed.
'In addition to these relatives, there was testimony from Mr. John L. Leflore that he has served since 1959 as Chairman of a Citizen's Committee devoted to the Willie Seals Defense Fund. This Committee appears to be related to the Non-Partisan Voters League. This witness testified that since 1960 the Defense Fund has distributed a total of $9,346.64, including the following sums paid as fees or expenses of attorneys:
Atty. Charles S. Conley, Montgomery, Ala. $3,591.70
Atty. Martin Bradley, Buffalo, N.Y. 616.80
Atty. Morton Stavis, Newark, N,J, 1,100.00
Atty. William Messing, New York, N.Y. 260.00
Atty. Clarence E. Moses, Mobile, Ala.
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seals v. State
...appealed to this court. On June 18, 1964, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying the free transcript.--Seals v. State of Alabama, 276 Ala. 654, 165 So.2d 742. Seals then filed in the Supreme Court of the United States a motion for leave to proceed in Forma pauperis and a petiti......
-
In re Smith
...to proceed in forma pauperis in a criminal case. Seals v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 254, 85 S.Ct. 943, 13 L.Ed.2d 818 (1965), reversing 276 Ala. 654, 165 So.2d 742 (1964). The court's five-line per curiam decision states a holding but does not give any reasons in support of it. Further on in this s......
-
Wilson v. State
...alternative by petition for mandamus. Appeal is the proper method of review. Ex parte Hite, 279 Ala. 78, 181 So.2d 892; Seals v. State, 276 Ala. 645, 165 So.2d 742; Ex parte Wade, Ms., 280 Ala. 92, 190 So.2d 285 (Sept. 15, The petition presented to the trial judge stated that defendant desi......
-
Orum v. State
...11; denied July 16. Petition for a free transcript was filed July 16; denied July 21, apparently on the same grounds as in Seals v. State, 276 Ala. 654, 165 So.2d 742. The request for a free transcript--for aught appearing--was made in good faith. The pendency of the proceeding worked to ex......