Harris v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Harris v. State

179 So. 2d 428, 43 Ala. App. 708, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 330

DecidedOctober 19, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 179 So. 2d 428 (Harris v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. State, 179 So. 2d 428, 43 Ala. App. 708, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 330 (Ala. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

CATES, Judge.

The prior opinions of the Court in this coram nobis appeal are withdrawn, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for the limited purpose of ascertaining (1) whether or not the defendant was indigent at the time of his original trial within the meaning of Seals v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 254, 85 S.Ct. 943, 13 L.Ed.2d 818; and (2) at what point of time and to what extent, if any, assistance of counsel was available to Harris before the trial court's appointment of Hon. Leonard Lowery on the day of Harris’s arraignment. Lott v. State, 276 Ala. 227, 160 So.2d 636.

The need for the second enquiry arises out of the following cases: Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292, 57 S.Ct. 724, 81 L.Ed. 1093; Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495; Estes v. Bridgforth, 114 Ala. 221, 21 So. 512; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, 31 So. 555; and Martin v. Long, 200 Ala. 210, 75 So. 968. See Wigmore, Evid. (3d Ed.), § 2568; Preston v. Preston, 253 Ala. 186, 43 So.2d 398 (hn. 2) ; White Way Pure Milk Co. v. Alabama State Milk Control Board, 265 Ala. 660, 93 So.2d 509 (hn. 5).

Remanded with directions.

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

CATES, Judge.

The prior opinions of the Court in this coram nobis appeal are withdrawn, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for the limited purpose of ascertaining (1) whether or not the defendant was indigent at the time of his original trial within the meaning of Seals v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 254, 85 S.Ct. 943, 13 L.Ed.2d 818; and (2) at what point of time and to what extent, if any, assistance of counsel was available to Harris before the trial court's appointment of Hon. Leonard Lowery on the day of Harris’s arraignment. Lott v. State, 276 Ala. 227, 160 So.2d 636.

The need for the second enquiry arises out of the following cases: Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292, 57 S.Ct. 724, 81 L.Ed. 1093; Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495; Estes v. Bridgforth, 114 Ala. 221, 21 So. 512; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, 31 So. 555; and Martin v. Long, 200 Ala. 210, 75 So. 968. See Wigmore, Evid. (3d Ed.), § 2568; Preston v. Preston, 253 Ala. 186, 43 So.2d 398 (hn. 2) ; White Way Pure Milk Co. v. Alabama State Milk Control Board, 265 Ala. 660, 93 So.2d 509 (hn. 5).

Remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 So. 2d 428, 43 Ala. App. 708, 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-alactapp-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack