Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

276 Ala. 282

Phillips v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided February 20, 1964

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1964-02-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It is also well established that in a petition for writ of error coram nobis, mere naked allegations that a constitutional right has been violated will not suffice. The application should make a full disclosure of the specific facts relied upon and not mere conclusions as to the nature and effect of such facts.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 420 So. 2d 826 - Stephens v. State

Relies on Phillips v. State · Garrett v. City of Shreveport · Metcalf v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-02-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2017

12 state decisions

60196419701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SIMPSON, Justice.

¶1This is a petition by George R. Phillips, to grant him leave to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis before the Circuit Court of Shelby County.

¶2The petition alleges the following grounds as a basis for the granting of the petition:

“(1) That petitioner was denied the right to a fair and impartial jury trial by the presiding judge.
“(2) That petitioner was not given sufficient time in which to prepare his case for trial.
“(3) That petitioner was denied the right to effective counsel, on the grounds that he was not informed of the offense against him, until nine (9) days prior to his trial, upon an indictment that charged robbery.
“(4) That petitioner was not afforded due process or equal protection of the law, that is required by the Constitution.”

¶3The petitioner was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Alabama and this Court affirmed the judgment of that conviction after a full and careful study of the case (272 Ala. 216, 130 So.2d 822).

¶4Manifestly, therefore, Ground (1) is without merit, which will be shown by the opinion of this Court in the case on appeal.

¶5Ground (2) is without merit since the appellant claims that he was tried nine days after he was informed of the charge against him. Nowhere does the petition show when the indictment was rendered and this ground is for this reason untenable. —Duncan v. State, 275 Ala. 290, 154 So.2d 305.

¶6*283Ground (3) is untenable as will be observed from the opinion in the case on his ■appeal — Phillips v. State, supra.

¶7Ground (4) is obviously without merit as stating a mere conclusion. — Cf. Metcalf v. State, 268 Ala. 533, 108 So.2d 446.

¶8We are constrained to hold that the petition is without merit and must be dismissed. So ordered.

¶9Petition dismissed.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
/276/ala/282 · .json · Public domain