Phillips v. State

161 So. 2d 485, 276 Ala. 282, 1964 Ala. LEXIS 321
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedFebruary 20, 1964
Docket7 Div. 643
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 161 So. 2d 485 (Phillips 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
Phillips v. State, 161 So. 2d 485, 276 Ala. 282, 1964 Ala. LEXIS 321 (Ala. 1964).

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

This is a petition by George R. Phillips, to grant him leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis before the Circuit Court of Shelby County.

The petition alleges the following grounds as a basis for the granting of the petition:

“(1) That petitioner was denied the right to a fair and impartial jury trial by the presiding judge.
“(2) That petitioner was not given sufficient time in which to prepare his case for trial.
“(3) That petitioner was denied the right to effective counsel, on the grounds that he was not informed of the offense against him, until nine (9) days prior to his trial, upon an indictment that charged robbery.
“(4) That petitioner was not afforded due process or equal protection of the law, that is required by the Constitution.”

The petitioner was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama and this Court affirmed the judgment of that conviction after a full and careful study of the case (272 Ala. 216, 130 So.2d 822).

Manifestly, therefore, Ground (1) is without merit, which will be shown by the opinion of this Court in the case on appeal.

Ground (2) is without merit since the appellant claims that he was tried nine days after he was informed of the charge against him. Nowhere does the petition show when the indictment was rendered and this ground is for this reason untenable. —Duncan v. State, 275 Ala. 290, 154 So.2d 305.

[283]*283Ground (3) is untenable as will be observed from the opinion in the case on his ■appeal — Phillips v. State, supra.

Ground (4) is obviously without merit as stating a mere conclusion. — Cf. Metcalf v. State, 268 Ala. 533, 108 So.2d 446.

We are constrained to hold that the petition is without merit and must be dismissed. So ordered.

Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

W.B.S. v. State
244 So. 3d 133 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2017)
Ex Parte Clisby
501 So. 2d 483 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1987)
Stephens v. State
420 So. 2d 826 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1982)
Hayes v. State
417 So. 2d 579 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1982)
Chatom v. State
366 So. 2d 1143 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Ex parte Phillips
168 So. 2d 10 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 So. 2d 485, 276 Ala. 282, 1964 Ala. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/phillips-v-state-ala-1964.