Watson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided January 10, 1984

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1984-01-10

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1997

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[w]ithout ruling on the truth or substance of the allegations, we conclude that the petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing at the trial court level.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 605 So. 2d 1253 - Pitts v. State

Relies on 416 So. 2d 778 - David v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-01-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This is an appeal from a denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis in which petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The petition was denied without an evidentiary hearing.

¶3The sworn petition contains specific charges against trial counsel for appellant. These allegations or charges are not mere conclusions but meet the requirements this court has set forth in many cases.

¶4Without ruling on the truth or substance of the allegations, we conclude that petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing at the trial court level. David v. State, 416 So.2d 778 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).

¶5Accordingly, we have no alternative but to remand this cause with instructions that the appellant be given an evidentiary hearing on the matters set forth in the petition.

¶6REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

¶7All the Judges concur.