Small v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Small v. State

615 So. 2d 1327, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 1993 WL 35217

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 12, 1993

DocketCR-91-1714

StatusPublished

This text of 615 So. 2d 1327 (Small 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

Small v. State, 615 So. 2d 1327, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 1993 WL 35217 (Ala. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Fernando Demandes Small filed a petition styled as a petition for a writ of habe-as corpus. While the trial court properly treated the petition as a post-conviction proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., it did not give the appellant the opportunity to file a petition in the form required by 32.-6(a), A.R.Crim.P. Therefore, this case is remanded to the Mobile Circuit Court with directions that the appellant’s petition be returned to him so that he can have the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition as required by Rule 32.6, A.R.Crim.P. Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala. Crim.App.1992); Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

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

MONTIEL, Judge.

Fernando Demandes Small filed a petition styled as a petition for a writ of habe-as corpus. While the trial court properly treated the petition as a post-conviction proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., it did not give the appellant the opportunity to file a petition in the form required by 32.-6(a), A.R.Crim.P. Therefore, this case is remanded to the Mobile Circuit Court with directions that the appellant’s petition be returned to him so that he can have the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32 petition as required by Rule 32.6, A.R.Crim.P. Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala. Crim.App.1992); Nickerson v. State, 597 So.2d 762 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 So. 2d 1327, 1993 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 168, 1993 WL 35217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/small-v-state-alacrimapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack