Bartlette v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Bartlette v. State

472 So. 2d 706, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5319

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 472 So. 2d 706 (Bartlette v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bartlette v. State, 472 So. 2d 706, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5319 (Ala. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging the loss of prison incentive good time. The petition is meritorious on its face and the District Attorney's motion to dismiss is not responsive to the petitioner's allegations concerning the loss of good time as the petitioner recognized in his answer to the motion to dismiss. The petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala. 1985). Where the State does not file an answer or return denying the specific allegations of fact in the petition, the facts as set out in the petition must be taken as true. Ex parte Williams,461 So.2d 1339 (Ala. 1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially).

The judgment of the circuit court denying the petition is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be held concerning the merits and allegations of the petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur. *Page 707

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This is an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging the loss of prison incentive good time. The petition is meritorious on its face and the District Attorney's motion to dismiss is not responsive to the petitioner's allegations concerning the loss of good time as the petitioner recognized in his answer to the motion to dismiss. The petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala. 1985). Where the State does not file an answer or return denying the specific allegations of fact in the petition, the facts as set out in the petition must be taken as true. Ex parte Williams,461 So.2d 1339 (Ala. 1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially).

The judgment of the circuit court denying the petition is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be held concerning the merits and allegations of the petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur. *Page 707

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 So. 2d 706, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bartlette-v-state-alacrimapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack