Ex Parte Edwards

Supreme Court of Alabama

Ex Parte Edwards

986 So. 2d 378, 2007 WL 3121814

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 26, 2007

Docket1061523

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 986 So. 2d 378 (Ex Parte Edwards) 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

Ex Parte Edwards, 986 So. 2d 378, 2007 WL 3121814 (Ala. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. R.App. P., allowing the petitioner and the respondent to file a brief and to request oral argument, and we summarily grant the writ. In Ex parte Gunn, [Ms. 1051754, September 21, 2007] ___ So.2d___(Ala. 2007), this Court overruled Wells v. State, 941 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), to the extent that Wells created a limitation on a trial court's jurisdiction to consider successive motions filed pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals in this case relied solely on Wells for its affirmance of the trial court's judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with Gunn.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.^*

*Page 379

LYONS, WOODALL, SMITH, BOLIN, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur.

STUAET, J., concurs specially.

COBB, C.J., recuses herself.

^* Note from the reporter of decisions: On December 14, 2007, after remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, without opinion (CR-06-1030).

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

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. R.App. P., allowing the petitioner and the respondent to file a brief and to request oral argument, and we summarily grant the writ. In Ex parte Gunn, [Ms. 1051754, September 21, 2007] ___ So.2d___(Ala. 2007), this Court overruled Wells v. State, 941 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), to the extent that Wells created a limitation on a trial court's jurisdiction to consider successive motions filed pursuant to § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975. The Court of Criminal Appeals in this case relied solely on Wells for its affirmance of the trial court's judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with Gunn.