Phelps v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Phelps v. State

339 So. 2d 124

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 24, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 339 So. 2d 124 (Phelps v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Phelps v. State, 339 So. 2d 124 (Ala. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Petition of Larry Wade Phelps, alias, for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Phelps v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,339 So.2d 124. The case was affirmed without opinion.

Although the petition's basis is averred to be a "conflict" with a prior decision on the same point of law, it does not comport with Rule 39 (c). The petition does not set out what the conflict is and what the case with which it conflicts held. The petition must therefore be denied.

We recognize that it is difficult, if not impossible, to claim a "conflict" in a "no opinion" case. But, we have not left a petitioner remediless.

What the petitioner should do when it is a "no opinion" case and he wants a review is to file (on rehearing in the Court of Appeals) a Rule 39 (k), ARAP, request for additional facts so as to present his point for review. If that court "fails to accede to this request," Rule 39 (k), he should copy the same statement in his petition to this Court. The rule states "it will be considered * * if found to be correct."

WRIT DENIED.

HEFLIN, C.J., and JONES, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur. *Page 125

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

Petition of Larry Wade Phelps, alias, for certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Phelps v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,339 So.2d 124. The case was affirmed without opinion.

Although the petition's basis is averred to be a "conflict" with a prior decision on the same point of law, it does not comport with Rule 39 (c). The petition does not set out what the conflict is and what the case with which it conflicts held. The petition must therefore be denied.

We recognize that it is difficult, if not impossible, to claim a "conflict" in a "no opinion" case. But, we have not left a petitioner remediless.

What the petitioner should do when it is a "no opinion" case and he wants a review is to file (on rehearing in the Court of Appeals) a Rule 39 (k), ARAP, request for additional facts so as to present his point for review. If that court "fails to accede to this request," Rule 39 (k), he should copy the same statement in his petition to this Court. The rule states "it will be considered * * if found to be correct."

WRIT DENIED.

HEFLIN, C.J., and JONES, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur. *Page 125

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

339 So. 2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phelps-v-state-ala-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack