Dailey v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Dailey v. State

640 So. 2d 1060, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1994 WL 440470

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 4, 1994

DocketCR-92-1328

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 640 So. 2d 1060 (Dailey 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

Dailey v. State, 640 So. 2d 1060, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1994 WL 440470 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

On Return to Remand

PATTERSON, Judge.

We remanded this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the appellant’s interest in the property that is the subject of his motion seeking the return of seized property and to determine whether the motion should be granted. The trial court has complied with our instructions and has filed a return finding that the appellant has no interest in the property. The return shows that the appellant purchased the property, a chain saw, from persons who had recently stolen it from Thomas Earl Watson. The return also shows Watson positively identified the chain saw as the property stolen from him. The police have returned the chain saw to Watson. Clearly, the appellant had no legal interest in or claim to the stolen property superior to that of its rightful owner, Watson. The trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion was proper and is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

On Return to Remand

PATTERSON, Judge.

We remanded this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the appellant’s interest in the property that is the subject of his motion seeking the return of seized property and to determine whether the motion should be granted. The trial court has complied with our instructions and has filed a return finding that the appellant has no interest in the property. The return shows that the appellant purchased the property, a chain saw, from persons who had recently stolen it from Thomas Earl Watson. The return also shows Watson positively identified the chain saw as the property stolen from him. The police have returned the chain saw to Watson. Clearly, the appellant had no legal interest in or claim to the stolen property superior to that of its rightful owner, Watson. The trial court’s denial of the appellant’s motion was proper and is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 1060, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1994 WL 440470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dailey-v-state-alacrimapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack