Hart v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Hart v. State

547 So. 2d 1195, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 631, 1989 WL 100455

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 30, 1989

Docket3 Div. 98

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 547 So. 2d 1195 (Hart v. State) 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

Hart v. State, 547 So. 2d 1195, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 631, 1989 WL 100455 (Ala. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

Eddie Hart was convicted, along with Grady Gibson, of the murder of Mrs. Dana Hart, Eddie Hart’s wife. Hart and Gibson were tried jointly. For purpose of appeal, their convictions were consolidated and are now under submission in this court in Eddie Hart v. State, 3 Div. 873, and Grady Gibson v. State, 3 Div. 823.

This is an appeal from the circuit court’s denial of Hart’s petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20, Ala.R.Crim.P. Temp. Rule 20 proceedings are an out[1196]*1196growth of the old coram nobis proceedings. The rule has long been that a coram nobis does not lie if a direct appeal is presently pending in the appellate court. Robinson v. State, 396 So.2d 1089 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Summers v. State, 366 So.2d 336 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.1979). We hold that this rule also applies to Rule 20 proceedings. Accordingly, the Rule 20 proceeding does not lie, and this appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.

Eddie Hart was convicted, along with Grady Gibson, of the murder of Mrs. Dana Hart, Eddie Hart’s wife. Hart and Gibson were tried jointly. For purpose of appeal, their convictions were consolidated and are now under submission in this court in Eddie Hart v. State, 3 Div. 873, and Grady Gibson v. State, 3 Div. 823.

This is an appeal from the circuit court’s denial of Hart’s petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20, Ala.R.Crim.P. Temp. Rule 20 proceedings are an out[1196]*1196growth of the old coram nobis proceedings. The rule has long been that a coram nobis does not lie if a direct appeal is presently pending in the appellate court. Robinson v. State, 396 So.2d 1089 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Summers v. State, 366 So.2d 336 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.1979). We hold that this rule also applies to Rule 20 proceedings. Accordingly, the Rule 20 proceeding does not lie, and this appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 So. 2d 1195, 1989 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 631, 1989 WL 100455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hart-v-state-alacrimapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack