Shelton v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Shelton v. State

640 So. 2d 41, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 64, 1994 WL 63522

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 4, 1994

DocketCR-92-0563

StatusPublished

This text of 640 So. 2d 41 (Shelton 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

Shelton v. State, 640 So. 2d 41, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 64, 1994 WL 63522 (Ala. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

On Return to Remand

PATTERSON, Judge.

On September 30, 1993, we remanded this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine why a witness who had been requested by [42]*42the inmate, Michael Shelton, to appear at his disciplinary hearing, was not made available and to determine if the reviewing officer had been involved in the investigation of the alleged violations of prison regulations. 640 So.2d 39. In his habeas corpus petition, Shelton attacked the validity of two prison disciplinary proceedings on grounds of sufficiency of the evidence and due process. One disciplinary charged failure to obey a direct order on or about March 24, 1992, and the other charged a sexual assault on the same date.

The trial court has filed its order dated November 5,1993, which we consider to be a return to our remand. It shows that the state moved to expunge the disciplinaries from Shelton’s records on November 2,1993, and that the motion was granted by the trial court. This action renders this appeal moot. This appeal is due to be dismissed.

DISMISSED.

All Judges concur.

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

On Return to Remand

PATTERSON, Judge.

On September 30, 1993, we remanded this cause to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine why a witness who had been requested by [42]*42the inmate, Michael Shelton, to appear at his disciplinary hearing, was not made available and to determine if the reviewing officer had been involved in the investigation of the alleged violations of prison regulations. 640 So.2d 39. In his habeas corpus petition, Shelton attacked the validity of two prison disciplinary proceedings on grounds of sufficiency of the evidence and due process. One disciplinary charged failure to obey a direct order on or about March 24, 1992, and the other charged a sexual assault on the same date.

The trial court has filed its order dated November 5,1993, which we consider to be a return to our remand. It shows that the state moved to expunge the disciplinaries from Shelton’s records on November 2,1993, and that the motion was granted by the trial court. This action renders this appeal moot. This appeal is due to be dismissed.

DISMISSED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

640 So. 2d 41, 1994 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 64, 1994 WL 63522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-state-alacrimapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack