Cofield v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Cofield v. State

491 So. 2d 1045, 1986 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5927

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 12, 1986

Docket6 Div. 830

StatusPublished

This text of 491 So. 2d 1045 (Cofield 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

Cofield v. State, 491 So. 2d 1045, 1986 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5927 (Ala. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Judge.

In this case Cofield seeks to attack the validity of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes in sentencing him. The trial court reviewed two prior convictions and, in fact, found one of them to be based on a defective indictment. The trial court did not consider the conviction based on the defective indictment in sentencing Cofield. However, it did consider the one based on what it found to be a valid indictment. The sole issue presented for our review in this case is whether a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper means of attacking the validity of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes.

In Jones v. State, 431 So.2d 1367 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), we said at page 1372:

“A plea of guilty is a conviction itself. This is not the proper forum for attacking a prior conviction used during a habitual offender hearing. The proper forum for attacking the validity of a prior conviction would be by a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See MayOla v. State, 337 So.2d 105 (Ala.Cr.App.1976).

“... We agree that one must be informed of his youthful offender rights if they apply, but, again, they cannot be raised on collateral attack. The proper way to challenge on these grounds would also be by a petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Mayola v. State, supra. Clemmons v. State, 56 Ala.App. 275, 321 So.2d 237 (Ala.Cr.App.1974), aff'd, 294 Ala. 746, 321 So.2d 238 (Ala.1975).”

We conclude that the appropriate way to collaterally attack any infirmity in a prior conviction used for enhancement of punishment is the writ of error coram nobis instead of habeas corpus. Further, a petition for a writ of error coram nobis would have to be filed in the circuit from which the conviction arose — in this case, Madison County. This habeas corpus petition was filed in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County. We find that in sentencing the appellant Cofield, the trial judge did not err by taking into consideration the prior conviction in question.

Accordingly, this case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Judge.

In this case Cofield seeks to attack the validity of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes in sentencing him. The trial court reviewed two prior convictions and, in fact, found one of them to be based on a defective indictment. The trial court did not consider the conviction based on the defective indictment in sentencing Cofield. However, it did consider the one based on what it found to be a valid indictment. The sole issue presented for our review in this case is whether a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper means of attacking the validity of a prior conviction used for enhancement purposes.

In Jones v. State, 431 So.2d 1367 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), we said at page 1372:

“A plea of guilty is a conviction itself. This is not the proper forum for attacking a prior conviction used during a habitual offender hearing. The proper forum for attacking the validity of a prior conviction would be by a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. See MayOla v. State, 337 So.2d 105 (Ala.Cr.App.1976).

“... We agree that one must be informed of his youthful offender rights if they apply, but, again, they cannot be raised on collateral attack. The proper way to challenge on these grounds would also be by a petition for writ of error coram nobis. See Mayola v. State, supra. Clemmons v. State, 56 Ala.App. 275, 321 So.2d 237 (Ala.Cr.App.1974), aff'd, 294 Ala. 746, 321 So.2d 238 (Ala.1975).”

We conclude that the appropriate way to collaterally attack any infirmity in a prior conviction used for enhancement of punishment is the writ of error coram nobis instead of habeas corpus. Further, a petition for a writ of error coram nobis would have to be filed in the circuit from which the conviction arose — in this case, Madison County. This habeas corpus petition was filed in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County. We find that in sentencing the appellant Cofield, the trial judge did not err by taking into consideration the prior conviction in question.

Accordingly, this case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

491 So. 2d 1045, 1986 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5927, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cofield-v-state-alacrimapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack