Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

499 So. 2d 819

Eason v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided November 12, 1986

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1986-11-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 1988

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"When the State fails to file an answer or return denying the allegations of fact in a petition, then the facts as set out in the petition must be taken as true. Ex parte State (Re: Williams v. State) , 461 So.2d 1339 , 1340 (Ala. 1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially); Hall v. State , 495 So.2d 717 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). `[T]he unrefuted facts set out by the petitioner must be taken as true.' Ex parte Floyd , 457 So.2d 961 , 962 (Ala. 1984). If the *Page 706 allegations are true, the petitioner may be entitled to relief; he certainly is entitled to a hearing on the merits. Graves v. State , 496 So.2d 94 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Kennedy v. State , 409 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Ellison v. State , 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981)."”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Glover v. State

Relies on Ex Parte Floyd · 406 So. 2d 439 - Ellison v. State · 461 So. 2d 1339 - Ex Parte State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TAYLOR, Judge.

¶1This is an appeal from the denial without a hearing of a pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner alleges, among other things, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. This is a ground which, if correctly set out, ordinarily warrants a hearing. He claims that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing and to appointed counsel to represent him at such hearing. The state, in its brief, concedes that petitioner is entitled to a hearing. There was no response of any kind filed in circuit court contradicting the allegations set out in the petition. When the state fails to file an answer or return denying the allegations of fact in a petition, then the facts as set out in the petition must be taken as true. Ex parte State (Re: Williams v. State), 461 So.2d 1339, 1340 (Ala.1984) (Torbert, C.J., concurring specially); Hall v. State, 495 So.2d 717 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). . “[T]he unrefuted facts set out by the petitioner must be taken as *820true.” Ex parte Floyd, 457 So.2d 961, 962 (Ala.1984). If the allegations are true, the petitioner may be entitled to relief; he certainly is entitled to a hearing on the merits. Graves v. State, 496 So.2d 94 (Ala.Cr.App. 1985); Kennedy v. State, 409 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Ellison v. State, 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).

¶2The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be held at which the appellant is present. We leave the determination of whether to appoint counsel to the trial court.

¶3REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
/499/so2d/819 · .json · Public domain