Young v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Young v. State

13 So. 3d 886, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 202, 2007 WL 2812775

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedSeptember 28, 2007

Docket1061272

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 So. 3d 886 (Young 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

Young v. State, 13 So. 3d 886, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 202, 2007 WL 2812775 (Ala. 2007).

Pincite

Opinions

BOLIN, Justice.

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. RApp. P., allowing the petitioner and the respondent to file a brief and to request oral argument, and we summarily grant the writ. This Court recently overruled Wells v. State, 941 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), to the extent that it created a limitation on a trial court’s jurisdiction to consider successive § 13A-5-9.1, Ala.Code 1975, motions. See Ex parte Gunn, 993 So.2d 433 (Ala.2007). The Court of Criminal Appeals relied solely on Wells in affirming the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with Gunn.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SEE, LYONS, WOODALL, SMITH, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur. STUART, J., concurs specially. COBB, C.J., recuses herself.

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

BOLIN, Justice.

We hereby suspend the provisions of Rule 39(g) and (h), Ala. RApp. P., allowing the petitioner and the respondent to file a brief and to request oral argument, and we summarily grant the writ. This Court recently overruled Wells v. State, 941 So.2d 1008 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), to the extent that it created a limitation on a trial court’s jurisdiction to consider successive § 13A-5-9.1, Ala.Code 1975, motions. See Ex parte Gunn, 993 So.2d 433 (Ala.2007). The Court of Criminal Appeals relied solely on Wells in affirming the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand the case for proceedings consistent with Gunn.

WRIT GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.

SEE, LYONS, WOODALL, SMITH, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur. STUART, J., concurs specially. COBB, C.J., recuses herself.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 So. 3d 886, 2007 Ala. LEXIS 202, 2007 WL 2812775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-state-ala-2007.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack