Orozco v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Orozco v. State

534 So. 2d 381, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 619, 1988 WL 127131

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 20, 1988

Docket4 Div. 78

StatusPublished

This text of 534 So. 2d 381 (Orozco 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

Orozco v. State, 534 So. 2d 381, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 619, 1988 WL 127131 (Ala. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

TAYLOR, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 20 petition, Ala.Temp.R.Crim.P. In that petition, appellant requests that he be granted an out-of-time appeal.

The state, in its brief, recognizes the well-established rule set out in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), that an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appeal, to have competent representation on appeal, and to have a free transcript on appeal. The state further recognizes that “the traditional relief available on coram nobis [since replaced by Rule 20 petitions] has been expanded to include a belated or out of time appeal where necessary to insure justice and fairness. Longmire v. State, 443 So.2d 1265 (Ala.1982); Brown v. State, 460 So.2d 263 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).” Jones v. State, 495 So.2d 722, 723-24 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The state, as does this court, considers the facts in the instant case more deserving than the ones in Jones, supra, for an out-of-time appeal. Therefore, the state, in effect concedes this point.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded with instructions that appellant be granted an out-of-time appeal and that a transcript be ordered and counsel appointed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

TAYLOR, Judge.

This is an appeal from the denial of a Rule 20 petition, Ala.Temp.R.Crim.P. In that petition, appellant requests that he be granted an out-of-time appeal.

The state, in its brief, recognizes the well-established rule set out in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956), that an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appeal, to have competent representation on appeal, and to have a free transcript on appeal. The state further recognizes that “the traditional relief available on coram nobis [since replaced by Rule 20 petitions] has been expanded to include a belated or out of time appeal where necessary to insure justice and fairness. Longmire v. State, 443 So.2d 1265 (Ala.1982); Brown v. State, 460 So.2d 263 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).” Jones v. State, 495 So.2d 722, 723-24 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The state, as does this court, considers the facts in the instant case more deserving than the ones in Jones, supra, for an out-of-time appeal. Therefore, the state, in effect concedes this point.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded with instructions that appellant be granted an out-of-time appeal and that a transcript be ordered and counsel appointed.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 So. 2d 381, 1988 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 619, 1988 WL 127131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orozco-v-state-alacrimapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack