Ex parte McDaniel

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Ex parte McDaniel

274 So. 2d 653, 49 Ala. App. 624, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1402

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 16, 1973

Docket5 Div. 176

StatusPublished

This text of 274 So. 2d 653 (Ex parte McDaniel) 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 McDaniel, 274 So. 2d 653, 49 Ala. App. 624, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1402 (Ala. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

1. There was no valid appointment of three reputable practitioners within Tit. 15, § 425, Code of Alabama, 1940. Seibold v. State, 287 Ala. 549, 253 So.2d 302, at page 555, 253 So.2d 302.

2. The petitioner, prior to arraignment, was at liberty under bail. Hence, Ex parte State ex rel. Patterson, 268 Ala. 524, 108 So.2d 448, applies.

3. The petitioner has made no claim of present insanity. His pleas to the indictment were not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. This later plea brings into issue the petitioner’s insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense only. With the record in this posture the petitioner’s present sanity is not at issue. Hawkins v. State, 267 Ala. 518, 103 So.2d 158. Furthermore, a finding by the proposed lunacy commission would not be a bar to prosecution, and neither would the report be binding on the trial court or on a jury. Hawkins, supra; George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602.

Let the writ of habeas corpus issue and the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Tallapoosa County.

CATES, P. J., and ALMON, TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

1. There was no valid appointment of three reputable practitioners within Tit. 15, § 425, Code of Alabama, 1940. Seibold v. State, 287 Ala. 549, 253 So.2d 302, at page 555, 253 So.2d 302.

2. The petitioner, prior to arraignment, was at liberty under bail. Hence, Ex parte State ex rel. Patterson, 268 Ala. 524, 108 So.2d 448, applies.

3. The petitioner has made no claim of present insanity. His pleas to the indictment were not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. This later plea brings into issue the petitioner’s insanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offense only. With the record in this posture the petitioner’s present sanity is not at issue. Hawkins v. State, 267 Ala. 518, 103 So.2d 158. Furthermore, a finding by the proposed lunacy commission would not be a bar to prosecution, and neither would the report be binding on the trial court or on a jury. Hawkins, supra; George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602.

Let the writ of habeas corpus issue and the petitioner be remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Tallapoosa County.

CATES, P. J., and ALMON, TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 So. 2d 653, 49 Ala. App. 624, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-mcdaniel-alacrimapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack