Whitfield v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Whitfield v. State

564 So. 2d 1055, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 926, 1990 WL 120507

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 29, 1990

Docket5 Div. 441

StatusPublished

This text of 564 So. 2d 1055 (Whitfield 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

Whitfield v. State, 564 So. 2d 1055, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 926, 1990 WL 120507 (Ala. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RETURN TO REMAND

PATTERSON, Judge.

We reversed and remanded this case for an evidentiary hearing, which the trial court held on October 14, 1988, and due return was made to this court. As a result of that hearing, on October 20, 1988, the trial court found that Tommy Whitfield's due process rights were, in fact, violated because the disciplinary board failed to enter a finding that what he might have had was, in fact, contraband. It, therefore, ordered that appellant’s petition for habeas corpus be granted. It further ordered that the disciplinary be expunged from his records and that all his rights and privileges taken away as a result of the disciplinary be restored.

As a result of the trial court’s action, this appeal has become moot, and it is, therefore, 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.

We reversed and remanded this case for an evidentiary hearing, which the trial court held on October 14, 1988, and due return was made to this court. As a result of that hearing, on October 20, 1988, the trial court found that Tommy Whitfield's due process rights were, in fact, violated because the disciplinary board failed to enter a finding that what he might have had was, in fact, contraband. It, therefore, ordered that appellant’s petition for habeas corpus be granted. It further ordered that the disciplinary be expunged from his records and that all his rights and privileges taken away as a result of the disciplinary be restored.

As a result of the trial court’s action, this appeal has become moot, and it is, therefore, dismissed.

DISMISSED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 1055, 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 926, 1990 WL 120507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitfield-v-state-alacrimapp-1990.