Dubose v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Dubose v. State

580 So. 2d 591, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1991 WL 29399

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 1, 1991

DocketCR-90-276

StatusPublished

This text of 580 So. 2d 591 (Dubose 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

Dubose v. State, 580 So. 2d 591, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1991 WL 29399 (Ala. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

TAYLOR, Judge.

James Elbert Dubose appeals from the summary denial of his Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P. Temp., petition. He alleged in his petition that there exists newly discovered evidence which would entitle him to a new trial. He includes with his petition two affidavits from individuals who were eyewitnesses to the crime for which Dubose was charged. The state requests that this case be remanded to the circuit court so that a hearing may be held on Dubose’s allegations concerning newly discovered evidence. The state further says that the trial court’s reasons for the dismissal of the petition are unclear. We agree. Thus, this case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, for that court to determine if, in fact, the evidence meets the requirements of “newly discovered evidence” as defined in Rule 20.1(e), A.R.Crim.P.Temp. A copy of the court’s findings shall be filed with this court within 90 days.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

The circuit court held a hearing on appellant’s Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., alleging newly discovered evidence and returned to this court its written findings in compliance with our opinion. The trial court committed no error in denying appellant’s Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., petition (now Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P.), since the evidence is not newly discovered under Rule 20.1(e), A.R.Crim. P.Temp. The action of the trial court is affirmed.

OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Judge.

James Elbert Dubose appeals from the summary denial of his Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P. Temp., petition. He alleged in his petition that there exists newly discovered evidence which would entitle him to a new trial. He includes with his petition two affidavits from individuals who were eyewitnesses to the crime for which Dubose was charged. The state requests that this case be remanded to the circuit court so that a hearing may be held on Dubose’s allegations concerning newly discovered evidence. The state further says that the trial court’s reasons for the dismissal of the petition are unclear. We agree. Thus, this case is remanded to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, for that court to determine if, in fact, the evidence meets the requirements of “newly discovered evidence” as defined in Rule 20.1(e), A.R.Crim.P.Temp. A copy of the court’s findings shall be filed with this court within 90 days.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All the Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

The circuit court held a hearing on appellant’s Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., alleging newly discovered evidence and returned to this court its written findings in compliance with our opinion. The trial court committed no error in denying appellant’s Rule 20, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., petition (now Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P.), since the evidence is not newly discovered under Rule 20.1(e), A.R.Crim. P.Temp. The action of the trial court is affirmed.

OPINION EXTENDED; AFFIRMED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

580 So. 2d 591, 1991 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 72, 1991 WL 29399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-state-alacrimapp-1991.