Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Ala. App. 57

Carty v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided August 17, 1965

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1965-08-17

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Gideon v. Wainwright · Irvin v. Dowd · Hamilton v. Alabama

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1965-08-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1983

6 state decisions

20196519701980decided

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 →

CATES, Judge.

¶1This appeal from denial of habeas corpus was submitted May 6, 1965.

¶2*58The appellant was originally convicted on his plea of guilty. However, since he had no lawyer at arraignment, the trial judge, on coram nobis, later set the judgment aside and ordered another trial. Pending his new trial, he is now in the Jefferson County jail in default of bail.

¶3The appellant seeks to stay his again being brought to book on the six pending indictments. He would try to carve out of a procedural error — albeit of constitutional proportions 1 2 — a vested right of immunity from further prosecution.

¶4No court has adjudged that any of the indictments against Carty is void. See 21 Am.Jur.2d, Crim.Law, § 209.

¶5Moreover, “legal” (reasonable probable) cause of detention2 — not the validity of an indictment — is the issue on habeas corpus. Code 1940, T. 15, §§ 24 and 29.

¶6Double jeopardy, if any, can be claimed by special plea. Circuit Ct. Rulé 30, 1st sent.; Code 1940, T. 15, § 288.

¶7The judgment below is due to be

¶8Affirmed.

¶9. Hamilton v. State of Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799.

¶10. The Federal courts accord State prosecutors a reasonable time to retry successful petitioners for habeas corpus. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751; Wiman v. Powell, 5 Cir., 293 F.2d 605; Wiman v. Argo, 5 Cir., 308 F.2d 674, 676. 28 U.S.C. § 2243, last paragraph provides: “The court shall … dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” Of. Holdsworth, History of English Law, IX 118.

¶11On Rehearing

CATES, Judge.

¶12Carty’s application says there was no petition for a writ of error coram nobis before the circuit court.

¶13In the landmark case of Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391, 13 So.2d 683, a habeas corpus petition was treated, as far as possible, as seeking coram nobis also.

¶14The caption no more determines the purpose of a pleading than a label shows what is in a package.

¶15Setting aside a sentence whilst a habeas corpus petition is before him is, on this record, within the trial judge’s scope of duty in carrying out the mandate of Hamilton v. State of Alabama, supra.

¶16Application overruled.

/43/alaapp/57 · .json · Public domain