Patton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Patton v. State

623 So. 2d 452, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 870, 1993 WL 179885

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMay 28, 1993

DocketCR-91-1922

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 623 So. 2d 452 (Patton 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

Patton v. State, 623 So. 2d 452, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 870, 1993 WL 179885 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Clay Ronald Patton appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition contends that his probation was improperly revoked because, he says, one of the conditions of his probation was illegal and it was the violation of this condition was the basis for the revocation.

A habeas corpus proceeding is not the proper forum for attacking the trial court’s revocation of probation. All post-conviction petitions seeking relief from a conviction or sentence shall be treated as a proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. “When a post-conviction petition seeking relief from conviction or sentence is filed with the circuit court that is not in the proper form as prescribed by Rule 32, notwithstanding the style of the petition, the court should return the petition to the petitioner to allow him to file the proper form.” Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to the petitioner so that he can have the opportuni[453]*453ty to file a proper Rule 32 petition as required by Rule 32.6, A.R.Crim.P.

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.

Clay Ronald Patton appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition contends that his probation was improperly revoked because, he says, one of the conditions of his probation was illegal and it was the violation of this condition was the basis for the revocation.

A habeas corpus proceeding is not the proper forum for attacking the trial court’s revocation of probation. All post-conviction petitions seeking relief from a conviction or sentence shall be treated as a proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Crim.P. “When a post-conviction petition seeking relief from conviction or sentence is filed with the circuit court that is not in the proper form as prescribed by Rule 32, notwithstanding the style of the petition, the court should return the petition to the petitioner to allow him to file the proper form.” Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to the petitioner so that he can have the opportuni[453]*453ty to file a proper Rule 32 petition as required by Rule 32.6, A.R.Crim.P.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

623 So. 2d 452, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 870, 1993 WL 179885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patton-v-state-alacrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack