Matkins v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Matkins v. State

597 So. 2d 760, 1992 WL 92518

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 27, 1992

DocketCR-91-0456

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 597 So. 2d 760 (Matkins 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

Matkins v. State, 597 So. 2d 760, 1992 WL 92518 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Randy Lee Matkins appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, the appellant states that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual offender because, he argues, his prior convictions that were used to enhance his sentence were invalid convictions. This matter should have been considered as a petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., and the cause should have been transferred to the court of original conviction. See Rule 32.1(a), 32.4, 32.5, 32.6, A.R.Crim.P. See also Graham v. State, [Ms. 91-125, March 13, 1992], ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).

The State's motion to reverse the judgment and remand this case is granted. This cause is remanded to the circuit court with instructions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to Matkins and that this cause be transferred to the court of original conviction. Matkins must be given the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition with that court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Randy Lee Matkins appeals from the denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, the appellant states that he was illegally sentenced as a habitual offender because, he argues, his prior convictions that were used to enhance his sentence were invalid convictions. This matter should have been considered as a petition for post-conviction relief under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P., and the cause should have been transferred to the court of original conviction. See Rule 32.1(a), 32.4, 32.5, 32.6, A.R.Crim.P. See also Graham v. State, [Ms. 91-125, March 13, 1992], ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 1992).

The State's motion to reverse the judgment and remand this case is granted. This cause is remanded to the circuit court with instructions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to Matkins and that this cause be transferred to the court of original conviction. Matkins must be given the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition with that court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

597 So. 2d 760, 1992 WL 92518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matkins-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack