Lawton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Lawton v. State

723 So. 2d 826, 1998 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 247, 1998 WL 737965

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedOctober 23, 1998

DocketCR-97-2018

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 723 So. 2d 826 (Lawton 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

Lawton v. State, 723 So. 2d 826, 1998 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 247, 1998 WL 737965 (Ala. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

McMILLAN, Judge.

This appeal comes from the summary dismissal of the appellant’s second Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition. This Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s first petition by an unpublished memorandum on the grounds that the petition was filed outside the limitations period. Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant alleges in his second petition that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence because, he says, the jury was not sworn and because, he says, there was insufficient probable cause to support his arrest.

However, the record indicates that the appellant filed a motion in forma pauper-is with his Rule 32 petition, which motion was denied by the trial court. The trial court does not appear to have addressed the Rule 32 petition, although the appellant apparently believed that this petition was denied. Rather, the trial court denied the in forma pau-peris motion; therefore, “there is no final judgment from which the appellant may properly proceed to this Court. A writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle by which a petitioner may compel the trial court to proceed on a Rule 32 petition in which the trial court has denied the petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.” Goodwin v. State, 720 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App.1998). Therefore, this appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LONG, P.J., and COBB, BROWN, and BASCHAB, JJ., concur.

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

McMILLAN, Judge.

This appeal comes from the summary dismissal of the appellant’s second Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition. This Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the appellant’s first petition by an unpublished memorandum on the grounds that the petition was filed outside the limitations period. Rule 32.2(c), Ala.R.Crim.P. The appellant alleges in his second petition that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence because, he says, the jury was not sworn and because, he says, there was insufficient probable cause to support his arrest.

However, the record indicates that the appellant filed a motion in forma pauper-is with his Rule 32 petition, which motion was denied by the trial court. The trial court does not appear to have addressed the Rule 32 petition, although the appellant apparently believed that this petition was denied. Rather, the trial court denied the in forma pau-peris motion; therefore, “there is no final judgment from which the appellant may properly proceed to this Court. A writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle by which a petitioner may compel the trial court to proceed on a Rule 32 petition in which the trial court has denied the petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.” Goodwin v. State, 720 So.2d 1050 (Ala.Cr.App.1998). Therefore, this appeal is due to be dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

LONG, P.J., and COBB, BROWN, and BASCHAB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 826, 1998 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 247, 1998 WL 737965, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawton-v-state-alacrimapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack