Taylor v. State

601 So. 2d 1154, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 423, 1992 WL 171726
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Taylor v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 600 So. 2d 1080
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided July 24, 1992·No. CR-91-786·Published

Opinion

MONTIEL, Judge.

Louis Oliver Taylor filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the Mobile Circuit Court. The trial court denied the petition without a hearing. This court has consistently held that when a petition styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus is filed and the allegations raised in the petition are cognizable in a proceeding under Rule 32, A.R.Cr.P., the cause should be entertained in the court of original conviction and the petitioner should be given the opportunity to file a proper post-conviction petition as required by Rule 32.6(a). Drayton v. State, 600 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (and cases cited therein). Therefore, this case is remanded to the circuit court with directions that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be returned to the appellant so that he can have the opportunity to file a proper Rule 32.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

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

Taylor v. State, 601 So. 2d 1154, 1992 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 423, 1992 WL 171726 (Ala. Ct. App. 1992).

601 So. 2d 1154 (Taylor v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Drayton v. State
600 So. 2d 1088 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1992)