Kerlin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Kerlin v. State

601 So. 2d 1156, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 429, 1992 WL 171733

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJuly 24, 1992

DocketCR-91-478

StatusPublished

This text of 601 So. 2d 1156 (Kerlin 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

Kerlin v. State, 601 So. 2d 1156, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 429, 1992 WL 171733 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Eric Jason Kerlin, appeals from the Jefferson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which had been transferred from the Barbour County Circuit Court. In this petition, Kerlin contested the validity of the September 1990 revocation of his probation.

This action is governed by A.R.Cr.P. 32. See Copeland v. State, 601 So.2d 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Rule 32.4. See also Welborn v. State, 586 So.2d 256, 257 n. 1 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Therefore, the following mandate of Rule 32.6(a) should have been observed: “The petition should be filed by using or following the form accompanying this rule. If that form is not used or followed, the court shall return the petition to the petitioner to be amended to comply with the form.” See Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court with the instruction that the instant petition be returned to Kerlin so that he may have the opportunity to amend his petition to comply with the Rule 32.6(a) requirement that the proper form be used.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

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

PATTERSON, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Eric Jason Kerlin, appeals from the Jefferson County Circuit Court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which had been transferred from the Barbour County Circuit Court. In this petition, Kerlin contested the validity of the September 1990 revocation of his probation.

This action is governed by A.R.Cr.P. 32. See Copeland v. State, 601 So.2d 1110 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Rule 32.4. See also Welborn v. State, 586 So.2d 256, 257 n. 1 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Therefore, the following mandate of Rule 32.6(a) should have been observed: “The petition should be filed by using or following the form accompanying this rule. If that form is not used or followed, the court shall return the petition to the petitioner to be amended to comply with the form.” See Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).

Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court with the instruction that the instant petition be returned to Kerlin so that he may have the opportunity to amend his petition to comply with the Rule 32.6(a) requirement that the proper form be used.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 So. 2d 1156, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 429, 1992 WL 171733, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerlin-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack