petition for writ error in Alabama

1989This burden extends beyond a mere balancing of probabilities to clearly and convincingly satisfy the court ... “ ‘The degree of proof is “highly exacting as to facts ‘and always means more than reasonably satisfying.’ ” The petitioner must convince the trial judge of the truth of his allegation and the judge must “believe” the testimony.’ Summers v. State, 366 So.2d 336, 343 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Summers, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.1979) (citations omitted). “ ‘Even where conflicting evidence is presented at a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis, the trial judge mus

1989This burden extends beyond a mere balancing of probabilities to clearly and convincingly satisfy the court. . . . " ' "The degree of proof is 'highly exacting as to facts "and always means more than reasonably satisfying." ' The petitioner must convince the trial judge of the truth of his allegation and the judge must 'believe' the testimony." Summers v. State , 366 So.2d 336 , 343 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978), cert. denied, Ex parte Summers , 366 So.2d 346 (Ala. 1979) (citations omitted). " ' "Even where conflicting evidence is presented at a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis, the tri

1983Nor do we agree with counsel for appellant that Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 (1943), authorizes treatment of an out-and-out petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

1983Nor do we agree with counsel for appellant that Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 (1943), authorizes treatment of an out-and-out petition for habeas corpus as a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2010“One condition of the trial court’s granting a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence is that the court must believe the evidence presented at the hearing.” McDonald v. State, 451 So.2d 440, 442 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). “ ‘Since a coram nobis petition “serves as a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence[,]” Groce v. State, 48 Ala.App. 709, 711 , 267 So.2d 499 (1972), there exists a presumption favoring the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2010“One condition of the trial court’s granting a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence is that the court must believe the evidence presented at the hearing.” McDonald v. State, 451 So.2d 440, 442 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). “ ‘Since a coram nobis petition “serves as a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence[,]” Groce v. State, 48 Ala.App. 709, 711 , 267 So.2d 499 (1972), there exists a presumption favoring the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2010Brooks v. State, 248 Ala. 628, 631 , 29 So.2d 4 (1947).

2010Brooks v. State, 248 Ala. 628, 631 , 29 So.2d 4 (1947).

1992Jones v. State , 431 So.2d 1367 , 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), followed in Ex parte Scott , 460 So.2d 1371 , 1374 (Ala. 1984)." Goodwin v. State , 516 So.2d at 821 , quoted in Lochli v. State , 565 So.2d at 296 (emphasis added by the court in Lochli ).

1990Jones v. State , 431 So.2d 1367 , 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), followed in Ex parte Scott , 460 So.2d 1371 , 1374 (Ala. 1984)." 516 So.2d at 821 (emphasis added).

1992Jones v. State , 431 So.2d 1367 , 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), followed in Ex parte Scott , 460 So.2d 1371 , 1374 (Ala. 1984)." Goodwin v. State , 516 So.2d at 821 , quoted in Lochli v. State , 565 So.2d at 296 (emphasis added by the court in Lochli ).

1990Jones v. State , 431 So.2d 1367 , 1372 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983), followed in Ex parte Scott , 460 So.2d 1371 , 1374 (Ala. 1984)." 516 So.2d at 821 (emphasis added).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1985Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1985Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1985Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1985Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied, 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied, 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1987On the authority of Ellison, supra, the denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis is reversed and this case must be remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

1984While Ellison, supra, stands for the proposition that an evidentiary hearing is required if a petition for writ of error cor-am nobis alleging ineffective assistance of counsel is meritorious on its face, this court has made it clear that the petition “must contain more than mere naked allegations that a constitutional right has been violated.” Stephens v. State, 420 So.2d 826, 828 (Ala. Crim.App.1982).

1985Mayola v. State, 344 So.2d 818 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 822 (Ala.1977).

1984Mayola v. State, 344 So.2d 818 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 822 (Ala.1977).

1982Ex parte Phillips, 276 Ala. 282 , 161 So.2d 485 (1964); Thomas v. State, 274 Ala. 531 , 150 So.2d 387 (1963); Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 (1943), or where the review court could have found that the grounds of the writ are unreasonable or false.

1982Ex parte Phillips, 276 Ala. 282 , 161 So.2d 485 (1964); Thomas v. State, 274 Ala. 531 , 150 So.2d 387 (1963); Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 (1943), or where the review court could have found that the grounds of the writ are unreasonable or false.

1997Thornburg v. State, 42 Ala.App. 70 , 152 So.2d 442 (1963).' (Emphasis in original.) "This Court reached a similar conclusion in Watkins v. State, 601 So.2d 187, 190 (Ala.Cr.App.1992): "`The appellant states that after the trial he recalled the name of an alibi witness and sought a new trial.

1997Thornburg v. State, 42 Ala.App. 70 , 152 So.2d 442 (1963).' (Emphasis in original.) "This Court reached a similar conclusion in Watkins v. State, 601 So.2d 187, 190 (Ala.Cr.App.1992): "`The appellant states that after the trial he recalled the name of an alibi witness and sought a new trial.

1988A more proper statement of the rule is found in Waldon v. State , 284 Ala. 608 , 609 , 227 So.2d 122 (1969): "Where the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis have been fully adjudicated and the petitioner makes no showing for the renewed consideration of the same matters by the court, it is not error to grant the State's motion to dismiss the second petition." "It is a well-settled rule that matters adjudicated in a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis are considered 'quasi res judicata'; in other words, repeated applications or petitions merely resting on the

1988A more proper statement of the rule is found in Waldon v. State , 284 Ala. 608 , 609 , 227 So.2d 122 (1969): "Where the allegations in a petition for writ of error coram nobis have been fully adjudicated and the petitioner makes no showing for the renewed consideration of the same matters by the court, it is not error to grant the State's motion to dismiss the second petition." "It is a well-settled rule that matters adjudicated in a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis are considered 'quasi res judicata'; in other words, repeated applications or petitions merely resting on the

1988See McCray v. State , 282 Ala. 315 , 211 So.2d 450 (1968); Bies v. State , 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982); Allen v. State , 42 Ala. App. 9 , 150 So.2d 399 , cert. denied , 275 Ala. 691 , 152 So.2d 439 , cert. denied , 374 U.S. 854 , 83 S.Ct. 1922 , 10 L.Ed.2d 1074 (1963).

1985The state cites Bies v. State, 418 So.2d 940 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), for the proposition that “issues adjudicated in a hearing on a petition for writ of error coram nobis are considered quasi res judicata.” The issues raised by this petition seem to be that petitioner received inadequate assistance of counsel and that his guilty plea was not voluntarily made.

1987Ex parte Boatwright , 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala. 1985); Ellison v. State , 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981).

1987Ex parte Boatwright, 471 So.2d 1257 (Ala.1985); Ellison v. State, 406 So.2d 439 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).

1986Allison v. State , 277 Ala. 423 , 171 So.2d 239 ." * * * * * * "Even where other grounds are alleged in the second petition, this Court has held that in the absence of a petition containing cogent and compelling reasons why all the grounds relied upon were not included in the first petition for writ of error coram nobis, which has been heard and determined, this Court will not order the lower court to entertain or hear a second coram nobis petition relating to the same conviction." Waldon v. State , 284 Ala. 608 , 609 , 227 So.2d 122 (1969). *Page 870 See also Andrews v. State , 278 Ala. 434 ,

1986Allison v. State , 277 Ala. 423 , 171 So.2d 239 ." * * * * * * "Even where other grounds are alleged in the second petition, this Court has held that in the absence of a petition containing cogent and compelling reasons why all the grounds relied upon were not included in the first petition for writ of error coram nobis, which has been heard and determined, this Court will not order the lower court to entertain or hear a second coram nobis petition relating to the same conviction." Waldon v. State , 284 Ala. 608 , 609 , 227 So.2d 122 (1969). *Page 870 See also Andrews v. State , 278 Ala. 434 ,

1974Ex parte Rudolph, 276 Ala. 392 , 162 So.2d 486 , cert. denied 377 U.S. 919 , 84 S.Ct. 1185 , 12 L.Ed.2d 188 ; Ex parte Seals, 271 Ala. 622 , 126 So.2d 474 , cert. denied 366 U.S. 954 , 81 S.Ct. 1909 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1246 ; Swain v. State, 285 Ala. 292 , 231 So.2d 737 , vacated in part (as to death penalty) 408 U.S. 936 , 92 S.Ct. 2860 , 33 L.Ed.2d 753 ; Holden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 164 , 251 So.2d 782 ; 24 C.J.S.

1974Ex parte Rudolph, 276 Ala. 392 , 162 So.2d 486 , cert. denied 377 U.S. 919 , 84 S.Ct. 1185 , 12 L.Ed.2d 188 ; Ex parte Seals, 271 Ala. 622 , 126 So.2d 474 , cert. denied 366 U.S. 954 , 81 S.Ct. 1909 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1246 ; Swain v. State, 285 Ala. 292 , 231 So.2d 737 , vacated in part (as to death penalty) 408 U.S. 936 , 92 S.Ct. 2860 , 33 L.Ed.2d 753 ; Holden v. State, 47 Ala.App. 164 , 251 So.2d 782 ; 24 C.J.S.