Thomas v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thomas v. State

616 So. 2d 352, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 744, 1992 WL 180735

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 31, 1992

Docket1910425

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 616 So. 2d 352 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 616 So. 2d 352, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 744, 1992 WL 180735 (Ala. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ADAMS, Justice.

In light of the prosecution’s misrepresentations regarding the lost evidence, we conclude that the denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside his guilty plea constituted a manifest injustice. See Rule 14.4(e), Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby reversed and the case is remanded with instructions that the defendant be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

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

ADAMS, Justice.

In light of the prosecution’s misrepresentations regarding the lost evidence, we conclude that the denial of the defendant’s motion to set aside his guilty plea constituted a manifest injustice. See Rule 14.4(e), Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is hereby reversed and the case is remanded with instructions that the defendant be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

616 So. 2d 352, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 744, 1992 WL 180735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-ala-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack