Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

344 So. 2d 826

Lovell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1977-03-29

Relies on Kinney v. White · Vincent v. State · Daniels v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-03-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 1991

19 state decisions

130197719801990decided

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 →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The appellant, Wendell Lee Lovell, brings this appeal from a judgment rendered in the Circuit Court of Jackson County which denied his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.

¶2From the record before us it appears that the appellant was represented in the trial court, and is now represented by court appointed counsel.

¶3By his petition for a writ of error coram nobis the appellant sought relief from three judgments of the circuit court of Jackson County whereby he had been sentenced to the penitentiary of Alabama for three years in each of the three cases with all three of the sentences to run concurrently. At the time the appellant filed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, and at the time the judgment under appeal to this Court was rendered, the three judgments the appellant had been sentenced on were pending on appeal to this Court.

¶4We hold that a writ of error coram nobis is not available to one during the time the judgments sought to be set aside are pending on appeals. Kinney v. White and White v. Kinney, 215 Ala. 247, 110 So. 394; Vincent v. State, 284 Ala. 242, 224 So.2d 601; Daniels v. State, 48 Ala.App. 750, 267 So.2d 540.

¶5The trial court’s action in dismissing the appellant’s petition for a writ of error cor-am nobis is hereby affirmed.

¶6There are no other rulings of the trial court complained of in appellant’s brief. We have examined carefully the entire record, and find from such examination that there is no error in the record prejudicial to the appellant.

¶7*827The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable Joseph J. Mullins, a retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court under the provisions of Section 6.10 of the new Judicial Article (Constitutional Amendment No. 328, Act # 1051, 1973); his opinion is hereby adopted as that of the Court.

¶8The judgment below is hereby affirmed.

¶9AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
/344/so2d/826 · .json · Public domain