Ex Parte Miller

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Ex Parte Miller

310 So. 2d 890, 54 Ala. App. 590, 1975 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1603

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedApril 1, 1975

Docket2 Div. 143

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 310 So. 2d 890 (Ex Parte Miller) 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 Miller, 310 So. 2d 890, 54 Ala. App. 590, 1975 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1603 (Ala. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

*591 CATES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original petition asking us to order the Board of Corrections to credit the petitioner with four months spent in the Pickens County jail before his conviction in two felony cases wherein judgment was rendered March, 1972.

From the petition it appears that petitioner anticipates that he will not be considered by the Pardon and Parole Board for parole at as early a date as he might if the credit had appeared on the mittimuses from the sentencing court.

The offense (robbery) for which Miller says he is serving time carries a minimum sentence of ten years. Hence, as the law stood in 1972 at his sentencing no jail time credit was allowable on a minimum penitentiary term. Recent Act No. 58, March 10, 1975 was not retroactive.

Miller made no effort to seek relief in a circuit court. Habeas corpus is not available until the prisoner is entitled to immediate release. Phillips v. State, 40 Ala.App. 698, 122 So.2d 551 — adhering to McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. See also Magee v. State, 42 Ala.App. 71, 152 So.2d 443.

Under Amendment No. 328 this court is appellate only — with writ jurisdiction auxiliary to matters in which it has appellate jurisdiction and in superintendence and control thereof.

Our basic business in the Court of Criminal Appeals involves appeals, writs of error and writs of error coram nobis. All else, e. g., injunction, habeas corpus, bail, extradition, mandamus, and prohibition revolve around the first category. Indeed, Amendment 328, § 603(c) denies in express terms original jurisdiction except in aid of appellate jurisdiction. 1

This petition is

Denied.

TYSON and BOOKOUT, JJ„ concur. HARRIS and DeCARLO, JJ., not participating.

1

. Any controversy over the future length of a sentence (after conviction and appeal barred by time) is between the prisoner and, either or both, the Board of Corrections and/or the Pardon and Parole Board. Before the prisoner becomes entitled to - immediate release (as by way of habeas corpus) the only conceivable remedy would seem to be a civil action for a declaratory judgment. Under Act No. 58, supra, the clerk of the sentencing court (or the sheriff, in case of an escape) would seem to be an indispensable party. Such litigation could not be reviewed in this court, § 603(c), supra.

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

*591 CATES, Presiding Judge.

This is an original petition asking us to order the Board of Corrections to credit the petitioner with four months spent in the Pickens County jail before his conviction in two felony cases wherein judgment was rendered March, 1972.

From the petition it appears that petitioner anticipates that he will not be considered by the Pardon and Parole Board for parole at as early a date as he might if the credit had appeared on the mittimuses from the sentencing court.

The offense (robbery) for which Miller says he is serving time carries a minimum sentence of ten years. Hence, as the law stood in 1972 at his sentencing no jail time credit was allowable on a minimum penitentiary term. Recent Act No. 58, March 10, 1975 was not retroactive.

Miller made no effort to seek relief in a circuit court. Habeas corpus is not available until the prisoner is entitled to immediate release. Phillips v. State, 40 Ala.App. 698, 122 So.2d 551 — adhering to McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131, 55 S.Ct. 24, 79 L.Ed. 238. See also Magee v. State, 42 Ala.App. 71, 152 So.2d 443.

Under Amendment No. 328 this court is appellate only — with writ jurisdiction auxiliary to matters in which it has appellate jurisdiction and in superintendence and control thereof.

Our basic business in the Court of Criminal Appeals involves appeals, writs of error and writs of error coram nobis. All else, e. g., injunction, habeas corpus, bail, extradition, mandamus, and prohibition revolve around the first category. Indeed, Amendment 328, § 603(c) denies in express terms original jurisdiction except in aid of appellate jurisdiction. 1

This petition is

Denied.

TYSON and BOOKOUT, JJ„ concur. HARRIS and DeCARLO, JJ., not participating.

1

. Any controversy over the future length of a sentence (after conviction and appeal barred by time) is between the prisoner and, either or both, the Board of Corrections and/or the Pardon and Parole Board. Before the prisoner becomes entitled to - immediate release (as by way of habeas corpus) the only conceivable remedy would seem to be a civil action for a declaratory judgment. Under Act No. 58, supra, the clerk of the sentencing court (or the sheriff, in case of an escape) would seem to be an indispensable party. Such litigation could not be reviewed in this court, § 603(c), supra.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

310 So. 2d 890, 54 Ala. App. 590, 1975 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-miller-alacrimapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack