Mitchell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Mitchell v. State

615 So. 2d 129, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1660, 1992 WL 330669

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 13, 1992

DocketCR-91-1422

StatusPublished

This text of 615 So. 2d 129 (Mitchell 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

Mitchell v. State, 615 So. 2d 129, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1660, 1992 WL 330669 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Michael Otis Mitchell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Escambia Circuit Court challenging his convictions for sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. The cause was transferred to the Mobile Circuit Court, where the petition was denied. This court has held that when a petition styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed and the allegations raised in the petition are cognizable in a proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., the cause should be entertained in the court of original conviction and the petitioner should be given the opportunity to file a proper post-conviction petition as required by Rule 32.6(a). Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992) (and cases cited therein). Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to the appellant so that he can have the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

MONTIEL, Judge.

Michael Otis Mitchell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the Escambia Circuit Court challenging his convictions for sodomy in the first degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. The cause was transferred to the Mobile Circuit Court, where the petition was denied. This court has held that when a petition styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed and the allegations raised in the petition are cognizable in a proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., the cause should be entertained in the court of original conviction and the petitioner should be given the opportunity to file a proper post-conviction petition as required by Rule 32.6(a). Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992) (and cases cited therein). Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to the appellant so that he can have the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 129, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1660, 1992 WL 330669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack