Ex Parte Hayden

531 So. 2d 940
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
DecidedAugust 23, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 531 So. 2d 940 (Ex Parte Hayden) 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
Ex Parte Hayden, 531 So. 2d 940 (Ala. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

This is a petition for writ of mandamus wherein the petitioner seeks to compel the circuit judge to order his release from jail. The facts are:

January 7, 1988 Petitioner pleaded guilty to Theft III and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

January 28 Probation was denied.

May 6 On petitioner's oral motion, the trial judge, without prior notice to the district attorney, modified and reduced the sentence to 99 days (which the petitioner had already served) and released the petitioner.

June 4 The district attorney filed a motion to reinstate sentence.

June 14 After a hearing, the trial judge reinstated the original 12 months' sentence.

In reinstating the original sentence, the trial judge stated, "Although this Court has been under the understanding that Circuit Courts had the authority to modify sentences beyond 30 days from the imposition of sentence as argued in DEFENDANT'S Memorandum of Law, the cases of Stout v. State, 45 Ala. App. 262, 229 So.2d 37 (1969) (paragraph 1), and Ex partePennington, 57 Ala. App. 128, 326 So.2d 656 (1976), although not directly on point, indicate that the Court has no power to suspend the execution of sentence after the date sentence is ordered."

Since there was no motion for new trial or request to modify sentence filed within 30 days of sentencing, the trial judge lost all jurisdiction to modify the defendant's *Page 941 sentence. Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala. 1985); State v.Green, 436 So.2d 803 (Ala. 1983). See also Rule 13, Temp.A.R.Cr.P. The circuit court's order of May 6th reducing and modifying the petitioner's sentence was a nullity. Therefore, this petition is due to be denied.

PETITION DENIED.

All Judges concur.

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

Related

Dixon v. State
912 So. 2d 292 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2005)
State v. Williams
819 So. 2d 79 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2000)
Ex Parte Hitt
778 So. 2d 159 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2000)
Phillips v. State
755 So. 2d 63 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1999)
Hollins v. State
737 So. 2d 1056 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1999)
Leonard v. State
686 So. 2d 554 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1996)
Massey v. State
587 So. 2d 448 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Ross v. State
581 So. 2d 495 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1991)
State v. Touart
562 So. 2d 1388 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1990)
Hill v. State
562 So. 2d 1386 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 So. 2d 940, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-hayden-alacrimapp-1988.