Bulger v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Bulger v. State

904 So. 2d 219, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 1909361

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedAugust 27, 2004

Docket1030800

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 904 So. 2d 219 (Bulger v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulger v. State, 904 So. 2d 219, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 1909361 (Ala. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

WOODALL, Justice.

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. RApp. P., allowing the respondent to file a brief, and we summarily grant the writ. In an opinion released today, this Court holds that § 13A-5-9.1, Ala.Code 1975, which provides for retroactive application of an amendment to the Habitual Felony Offender Act, § 13A-5-9, Ala.Code 1975, is not unconstitutional and that an evaluation of the convicted offender by the Department of Corrections, while helpful, is not essential to the trial court’s implementation of that statute. See Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004). Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with Kirby.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

NABERS, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.

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

WOODALL, Justice.

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. RApp. P., allowing the respondent to file a brief, and we summarily grant the writ. In an opinion released today, this Court holds that § 13A-5-9.1, Ala.Code 1975, which provides for retroactive application of an amendment to the Habitual Felony Offender Act, § 13A-5-9, Ala.Code 1975, is not unconstitutional and that an evaluation of the convicted offender by the Department of Corrections, while helpful, is not essential to the trial court’s implementation of that statute. See Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004). Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with Kirby.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

NABERS, C.J., and HOUSTON, SEE, LYONS, BROWN, JOHNSTONE, HARWOOD, and STUART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

904 So. 2d 219, 2004 Ala. LEXIS 209, 2004 WL 1909361, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulger-v-state-ala-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack