Chandler v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Chandler v. State

669 So. 2d 222, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 299, 1995 WL 527798

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 8, 1995

DocketCR-94-1716

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 669 So. 2d 222 (Chandler 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

Chandler v. State, 669 So. 2d 222, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 299, 1995 WL 527798 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

PATTERSON, Judge.

Mark Anthony Chandler filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County (Bessemer Division). The petition was denied and the trial court indicated that the issues raised in the petition were cognizable under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P. Because the issues raised by Chandler are cognizable under Rule 32, the petition should have been returned to Chandler with instructions to file, in the court of original conviction, a properly completed and verified petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32. This cause is hereby remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside its prior order of June 1, 1995, denying Chandler’s petition and to comply with the procedure outlined in this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TAYLOR, P.J., and McMILLAN, and COBB, JJ., concur. LONG, J., concurs specially.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

Mark Anthony Chandler filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County (Bessemer Division). The petition was denied and the trial court indicated that the issues raised in the petition were cognizable under Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P. Because the issues raised by Chandler are cognizable under Rule 32, the petition should have been returned to Chandler with instructions to file, in the court of original conviction, a properly completed and verified petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32. This cause is hereby remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside its prior order of June 1, 1995, denying Chandler’s petition and to comply with the procedure outlined in this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

TAYLOR, P.J., and McMILLAN, and COBB, JJ., concur. LONG, J., concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

669 So. 2d 222, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 299, 1995 WL 527798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chandler-v-state-alacrimapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack