Maddox v. State

615 So. 2d 1330, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 185, 1993 WL 35247
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Maddox v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 104
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided February 12, 1993·No. CR-92-0243·Published

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Jimmy Lee Maddox filed a petition styled as a “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (and/or) Writ of Error Coram Nobis.” While the trial court properly treated the petition as a post-conviction petition under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., it did not give the appellant the opportunity to amend his petition to comply with the form accompanying Rule 32, as required by 32.6(a), A.R.Crim.P. Therefore, this case is remanded to the Lee Circuit Court with directions that the petition be returned to the appellant so that he can amend his petition to comply with the form accompanying Rule 32, as required by Rule 32.6, A.R.Crim.P. Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Crim. App.1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Maddox v. State, 615 So. 2d 1330, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 185, 1993 WL 35247 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

615 So. 2d 1330 (Maddox v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drayton v. State
600 So. 2d 1088 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)
Nickerson v. State
597 So. 2d 762 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)