Woodruff v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Woodruff v. State

462 So. 2d 1062, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4853

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 22, 1985

Docket6 Div. 643

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 462 So. 2d 1062 (Woodruff 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

Woodruff v. State, 462 So. 2d 1062, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4853 (Ala. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Charles Woodruff, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his “petition for writ of error,” which attacks his 1981 conviction for the offense of robbery in the first degree and his resulting sentence of ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. In his petition, Woodruff specifically alleges that he was denied his right to appeal, because neither the trial court nor [1063]*1063his counsel advised him of his right to appeal, and, also, because counsel “did not avail himself to petitioner so that he could file a notice of appeal.”

It is now established that a cognizable ground for a coram nobis petition is the allegation that the petitioner,, through no fault of his own, was denied his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. E.g., Longmire v. State, 443 So.2d 1265 (Ala.1982); Rodgers v. State, 453 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Peterson v. State, 428 So.2d 201 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Hence, Woodruff should have been afforded a hearing on the merits of his petition, since the petition made factual allegations which, if true, would entitled him to relief. See Whitson v. State, 435 So.2d 230 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Ellison v. State, 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Accordingly, this cause is remanded, as requested by the Attorney General, with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing at which Wood-ruff is present and represented by counsel and submit findings of fact on return to this court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

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

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Charles Woodruff, appeals from the trial court’s summary denial of his “petition for writ of error,” which attacks his 1981 conviction for the offense of robbery in the first degree and his resulting sentence of ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. In his petition, Woodruff specifically alleges that he was denied his right to appeal, because neither the trial court nor [1063]*1063his counsel advised him of his right to appeal, and, also, because counsel “did not avail himself to petitioner so that he could file a notice of appeal.”

It is now established that a cognizable ground for a coram nobis petition is the allegation that the petitioner,, through no fault of his own, was denied his right to a direct appeal of his conviction. E.g., Longmire v. State, 443 So.2d 1265 (Ala.1982); Rodgers v. State, 453 So.2d 769 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Peterson v. State, 428 So.2d 201 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Hence, Woodruff should have been afforded a hearing on the merits of his petition, since the petition made factual allegations which, if true, would entitled him to relief. See Whitson v. State, 435 So.2d 230 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Ellison v. State, 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Accordingly, this cause is remanded, as requested by the Attorney General, with directions that the trial court hold an evidentiary hearing at which Wood-ruff is present and represented by counsel and submit findings of fact on return to this court.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

462 So. 2d 1062, 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodruff-v-state-alacrimapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack