Thomas v. State
616 So. 2d 352, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 744, 1992 WL 180735
Opinion
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas v. State, 616 So. 2d 352, 1992 Ala. LEXIS 744, 1992 WL 180735 (Ala. 1992).
616 So. 2d 352 (Thomas v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ex parte Ronald Eugene Hollander, Jr.
164 So. 3d 1123 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2014)
Thomas v. State
616 So. 2d 353 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1993)
Martin v. State
616 So. 2d 353 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1992)