Thomas v. State, 1 Div. 392
| Decision Date | 22 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 392 |
| Parties | Richard Jewell THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Richard Jewell Thomas, pro se.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing and denying appellant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
The appellant was convicted in 1959 of carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age, and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years.
In his prosecution on the carnal knowledge charge, the appellant was represented by court appointed counsel at arraignment and during his trial. After judgment of guilty, notice of appeal was given, but the appellant withdrew his notice of appeal and elected to begin serving his sentence. He was forthwith transferred to Kilby Prison.
Since his incarceration the appellant has been a most active practitioner in processing post conviction proceedings both in the state courts and in the federal courts.
In 1960, the appellant filed an original petition for habeas corpus in this court. This petition was denied. Ex parte Thomas, 270 Ala. 411, 118 So. 738. Thereafter his petition for habeas corpus was denied by the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, with certiorari being denied by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. See Thomas v. Wiman, 370 U.S. 947, 82 S.Ct. 1594, 8 L.Ed.2d 812.
The Attorney General in brief states that thereafter appellant filed a number of petitions for writs of habeas corpus in the United States District Court in Montgomery and in Mobile, and in the Fifth Circuit as well as in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Thomas next appears in the reports of this court in 1963, wherein a judgment of the Circuit Court of Clarke County denying another petition for writ of error coram nobis was affirmed. In this petition some four violations of his constitutional rights were averred by the petitioner. Thomas v. State, 274 Ala. 531, 150 So.2d 387.
In connection with the 1963 coram nobis proceedings the Attorney General, under the provisions of Sections 566, 567, Title 7, Code of Alabama 1940, instituted an action to correct the judgment entered in the original trial to reflect that a copy of the indictment was timely served on Thomas, and that he was asked by the court before pronouncing sentence if he had anything to say why the sentence should not be pronounced upon him.
Prior to such nunc pro tunc hearing in 1963, the lower court ordered Thomas transferred to Clarke County to be present at the hearing. Counsel was not appointed to represent Thomas at the nunc pro tunc proceedings.
The present coram nobis proceedings are based upon Thomas' lack of counsel at the nunc pro tunc proceedings.
As stated in Horsley v. State, 42 Ala.App. 567, 172 So.2d 56:
Nor is the writ of error coram nobis intended to provide a review by appeal where the complaining party has not sought to appeal and the time for appeal has long since expired. Thomas v. State, 274 Ala. 531, 150 So.2d 387, supra
The omission in the original judgment of a showing that Thomas had not been served with the indictment, and of a showing of allocutus, now...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summers v. State
...that the writ does not serve as a substitute for an appeal, Butler v. State, 279 Ala. 311, 184 So.2d 823 (1966), Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 190 So.2d 542 (1966), and is not "an omnium gatherum or catchall of accordion like remedies to solve (or salve) all the supposed wrongs of those on......
-
Cassell v. State
...to remand this cause for proper sentence, otherwise the judgment is affirmed. Smith v. State, 28 Ala.App. 506, 189 So. 86; Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 190 So.2d 542. We have carefully reviewed this record, and except for the failure to show an allocutus before the imposition of sentence,......
-
Jackson v. State
...Adams v. State, 281 Ala. 432, 433, 203 So.2d 448 (1967); Eagen v. State, 280 Ala. 438, 441-42, 194 So.2d 842 (1967); Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 110, 190 So.2d 542 (1966); Butler v. State, 279 Ala. 311, 313, 184 So.2d 823 (1966); Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 474, 179 So.2d 51 (1965);......
-
Sheehan v. State
...appellate review where the complaining party has not sought such and the time for taking such has long since expired. Thomas v. State, 280 Ala. 109, 190 So.2d 542 (1966); Mayola v. State, 344 So.2d 818 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 822 The defendant relies heavily upon the followin......