Maples v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Maples v. State

675 So. 2d 415, 1996 Ala. LEXIS 59, 1996 WL 87520

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided March 1, 1996·No. 1950082·Published

Opinion

INGRAM, Justice.

After carefully reviewing the record, we quash the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted.

We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly stated in its unpublished memorandum that the defendant had worked for the employer before her conviction. The record reflects that the defendant worked for the employer after her conviction. This, however, does not affect our decision to quash the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted. See Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, COOK, and BUTTS, JJ., concur.

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

INGRAM, Justice.

After carefully reviewing the record, we quash the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted.

We note that the Court of Criminal Appeals incorrectly stated in its unpublished memorandum that the defendant had worked for the employer before her conviction. The record reflects that the defendant worked for the employer after her conviction. This, however, does not affect our decision to quash the writ of certiorari as having been improvidently granted. See Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

HOOPER, C.J., and HOUSTON, COOK, and BUTTS, JJ., concur.

Maples v. State, 675 So. 2d 415, 1996 Ala. LEXIS 59, 1996 WL 87520 (Ala. 1996).

Pincite

675 So. 2d 415 (Maples v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related