Smith v. State, 3 Div. 796
| Decision Date | 01 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 796 |
| Citation | 440 So.2d 1222 |
| Parties | Willie Morris SMITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Willie Morris Smith, pro se.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
An instrument in writing and dated the 13th day of March, 1983, was styled "Willie Morris Smith, petitioner, vs. the State of Alabama, respondent, Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Under head of "statement of case" it is averred that on or about December 8, 1975, the petitioner was arrested and charged with the November 21, 1975, robbery and assault with intent to murder of a Clifford A. St. John, Sr. On February 9, 1976, the petitioner was indicted by the Grand Jury of Montgomery County, Alabama, on Cases # 76-192 and 76-193. On February 17, 1976, the petitioner was arraigned and trial was set for April 13, 1976, on Case # 76-193, and April 15 on Case # 76-192. The petitioner was tried by a jury, and convicted on both indictments. On Case # 76-193 sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, and "life" on Case # 76-192.
Under heading of "allegations" the paper states that he was not taken before a magistrate immediately after being arrested, was held incommunicado, and was deprived of the right to counsel prior to interrogation; that he was committed by false evidence, a coerced confession, and action of a grand jury which was unconstitutionally selected and impanelled; and that he was deprived of his Miranda rights.
The paper requested that the court grant the petitioner a new trial. On March 31, 1983, the motion for a writ of habeas corpus was dismissed. On April 7, 1983, notice of appeal was given. Code of Alabama, 1975, Section 15-21-8, provides that the judge to whom the application for a "writ of habeas corpus is made must grant the same without delay, unless it appears from the petition itself or from the documents thereto annexed that the person imprisoned or restrained is not entitled to the benefits of the writ under the provisions of" chapter 21. Code of Alabama, 1975, Section 15-21-4, provides for some of the contents of the petition. The requirements of Section 15-21-4 are not met by the statements in the petition in this record. When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus shows on its face that if all the statements of fact contained in the petition were true, the petitioner would not be entitled to a writ of habeas corpus, it is not error to deny the petition. It appears from the petition in this case that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hennings v. Chandler
...habeas corpus relief cannot be granted, the court should not allow the writ and should dismiss the petition); Smith v. State, 440 So.2d 1222, 1223-24 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) (trial court did not err in denying petition for writ of habeas corpus that wholly failed to state facts entitling petiti......
-
EX PARTE RD
...is not the correct remedy to correct errors and irregularities in a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction." Smith v. State, 440 So.2d 1222, 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). 4. Note from the reporter of decisions: On July 9, 1999, the Supreme Court denied R.D.'s petition for a writ of habeas cor......
-
State ex rel. Blackstock v. Davis (Ex parte Davis), 2130954.
...this Court by order dated December 5, 2013."A writ of habeas corpus may not be used as a substitute for an appeal. Smith v. State, 440 So.2d 1222, 1224 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). Davis could have appealed the circuit court's order of contempt. He cannot use an extraordinary petition to seek revie......
-
Cayson v. State
...is not the correct remedy to correct errors and irregularities in a trial in a court of competent jurisdiction." Smith v. State, 440 So.2d 1222, 1224 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). "[A] petition for a writ of habeas corpus contesting the validity of a conviction should [be] treated as a petition for......