Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

455 So. 2d 956

Docket 83-970.

Ex Parte Copeland

Ex parte Robert Lee COPELAND. (In re Robert Lee Copeland, Jr., alias v. State of Alabama).

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided August 31, 1984.

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1984-08-31

Relies on Easton v. United States · 401 So. 2d 204 - Ferguson v. State · 401 So. 2d 191 - Nobis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-08-31

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably 596 So. 2d 16 - Huff v. State (1992), 820 So. 2d 842 - Johnson v. State (2000)

29 state decisions

150198419902000decided

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 →

¶1Jack W. Wallace, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.

¶2Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for respondent.

¶3TORBERT, Chief Justice.

¶4WRIT DENIED.

¶5MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.

¶6BEATTY, J., concurs specially.

¶7BEATTY, Justice (concurring specially):

¶8While I concur in the denial of this writ, I wish to point out that the cases[1] concerning a defendant's right to a preliminary hearing under § 15-11-1, Code of 1975,[2] including the present case, have all failed to analyze § 15-11-1 with reference to its *957 historical framework. These opinions show a lack of appreciation for the distinction between the process of arrest based upon indictment and the process of arrest based upon affidavit and warrant, and they ignore what appears to be the legislature's no doubt well-intended but poorly drafted effort to accommodate these two.

¶9The present case also raises, in my mind, the question of whether the prosecutor's power to nol-pros criminal charges can be reconciled with § 15-11-1. While that issue was not properly before the Court of Criminal Appeals, cf. Duncan v. State,369 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (noting that "[w]hether an accused, armed with § 15-11-1, could obtain a mandamus to compel the trial judge to grant that absolute right [to a preliminary hearing] is not in issue"), it is a question which, when properly presented, should be given careful consideration. But see Hammond v. State,354 So.2d 280 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. quashed,354 So.2d 294 (Ala.1977), cert. denied,439 U.S. 823, 99 S.Ct. 91, 58 L.Ed.2d 115 (1978) (holding without discussion and without even mentioning § 15-11-1 that the defendant was not "denied a constitutional right when the State nol-prossed the charges in the county court immediately prior to his preliminary hearing and then proceeded in circuit court by way of indictment.").

NOTES

¶10[1] Nobis v. State,401 So.2d 191 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied,401 So.2d 204 (Ala.1981); Duncan v. State,369 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). See also Ex parte Potts,426 So.2d 896 (Ala. 1983).

¶11[2] Section 15-11-1 provides: "Every person charged with and arrested for a felony before his indictment shall have an absolute right to a preliminary hearing on said charge upon such person's demand within 30 days following said arrest; provided, that such person's failure or refusal to appear for such preliminary hearing or his absence from the state at the time of the setting for the preliminary hearing shall not delay or invalidate an indictment pursuant to said charge."

/455/so2d/956 · .json · Public domain