Home/Alabama Court of Appeals/Ex parte Teal

Ex parte Teal

153 So. 2d 656, 42 Ala. App. 97, 1963 Ala. App. LEXIS 253
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 14, 1963·No. 7 Div. 735·Published

Opinion

CATES, Judge.

Teal, in Kilby Prison, asks us to compel the City of Anniston to withdraw, dismiss or proceed with a “detainer” lodged against him at Kilby by the City.

The allegations are not directed against any officer of the City. If the charge against Teal is for a felony, then he has no call upon the City. The State has sole prosecution of felonies after indictment. Constitution 1901, § 170, and Amendment 37; Code 1940, T. 15, §§ 169 and 170.

We see no application of the doctrine of Ex parte State, ex rel. Attorney General, [98] 255 Ala. 443, 52 So.2d 158. Cf. Accardo v. State, 39 Ala.App. 453, 102 So.2d 913; Billingsley v. State, 34 Ala.App. 475, 41 So.2d 431; and Howell v. City of Ft. Payne, 246 Ala. 315, 20 So.2d 880.

The petition for mandamus is

Denied.

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

Ex parte Teal, 153 So. 2d 656, 42 Ala. App. 97, 1963 Ala. App. LEXIS 253 (Ala. Ct. App. 1963).

153 So. 2d 656 (Ex parte Teal) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Accardo v. State
102 So. 2d 913 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1958)
Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Attorney General
52 So. 2d 158 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1951)
Howell v. City of Fort Payne
20 So. 2d 880 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1945)
Billingsley v. State
41 So. 2d 431 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1949)