Salter v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Salter v. State

594 So. 2d 249, 1992 WL 21031

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 17, 1992

DocketCR 91-39

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 594 So. 2d 249 (Salter 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

Salter v. State, 594 So. 2d 249, 1992 WL 21031 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner challenges his two 1983 guilty plea convictions for the unlawful possession of hashish and Diazepam on the ground that those convictions were barred by double jeopardy because his possession of both controlled substances was simultaneous. See Vogel v. State, 426 So.2d 863 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1107,103 S.Ct. 2456, 77 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1983). The circuit court denied the petition because "[t]he remedy which the petitioner seeks is not available under habeas corpus motion." R. 30.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus was improperly dismissed. The petition should have been treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Rule 32.4, A.R.Crim.P., provides: "A proceeding under this rule displaces all post-trial remedies except post-trial motions under Rule 24 and appeal. Any other post-conviction petition seeking relief from a convictionor sentence shall be treated as a proceeding under this rule." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

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

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner challenges his two 1983 guilty plea convictions for the unlawful possession of hashish and Diazepam on the ground that those convictions were barred by double jeopardy because his possession of both controlled substances was simultaneous. See Vogel v. State, 426 So.2d 863 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1107,103 S.Ct. 2456, 77 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1983). The circuit court denied the petition because "[t]he remedy which the petitioner seeks is not available under habeas corpus motion." R. 30.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus was improperly dismissed. The petition should have been treated as a petition for post-conviction relief. Rule 32.4, A.R.Crim.P., provides: "A proceeding under this rule displaces all post-trial remedies except post-trial motions under Rule 24 and appeal. Any other post-conviction petition seeking relief from a convictionor sentence shall be treated as a proceeding under this rule." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed. This cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

594 So. 2d 249, 1992 WL 21031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salter-v-state-alacrimapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack