correction error in Alabama

1993Co., 103 Ala. 415, 418 , 15 So. 836 [(1893)].

1993Co. , 103 Ala. 415 , 418 , 15 So. 836 [(1893)].

1993However, as Justice Simpson noted in Ex parte Weissinger: "[T]his court has permitted a liberal enlargement of the use of the writ so that, `if an order, or judgment, or decree, is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal, or other revisory remedy and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded.' Ex parte Woodruff, 123 Ala. 99, 100 , 26 So. 509 [(1898)]; Ex parte Tower Mfg.

1993However, as Justice Simpson noted in Ex parte Weissinger: "[T]his court has permitted a liberal enlargement of the use of the writ so that, 'if an order, or judgment, or decree, is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal, or other revisory remedy and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded.' Ex parte Woodruff , 123 Ala. 99 , 100 , 26 So. 509 [(1898)]; Ex parte Tower Mfg.

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal *710 remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded." In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus,

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded.” In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus, said

1982Tillis v. State, 349 So.2d 95 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 100 (Ala.1977); Groce v. State, 48 Ala.App. 709 at 710, 711 , 267 So.2d 499 (1972).

1978Tillis v. State , 349 So.2d 95 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 100 (Ala. 1977); Groce v. State , 48 Ala. App. 709 at 710, 711, 267 So.2d 499 (1972).

1982Tillis v. State, 349 So.2d 95 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 100 (Ala.1977); Groce v. State, 48 Ala.App. 709 at 710, 711 , 267 So.2d 499 (1972).

1978Tillis v. State , 349 So.2d 95 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 349 So.2d 100 (Ala. 1977); Groce v. State , 48 Ala. App. 709 at 710, 711, 267 So.2d 499 (1972).

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1983Goodman v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 387 So.2d 862 , writ denied, Ala., 387 So.2d 864 .

1983Goodman v. State , Ala.Cr.App., 387 So.2d 862 , writ denied, Ala., 387 So.2d 864 .

1983“In coram nobis proceedings, when inadequacy of counsel is alleged, the burden is upon petitioner to show by clear and convincing evidence that his legal representation was totally inadequate.” (Citations omitted.) Woodard v. State, 433 So.2d 1198 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1969See Smith v. State, 245 Ala. 161 , 16 So.2d 315 , where the Supreme Court has said: “The office of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court for correction an error of fact, one not appearing on the face of the record, unknown to the court or the party affected, and which, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged. 24 Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, § 1606, page 143; Lamb v. State, 91 Fla. 396 , 107 So. 535 ; House v. State, 130 Fla. 400 , 177 So. 705 .” See also Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391 , 13 So.2d 683 , where

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal *710 remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded." In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus,

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded.” In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus, said

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal *710 remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded." In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus,

1967The recent cases of Ex parte Barnes, 84 Ala. 540 , 4 South. 769 , and Reynolds v. Crook, 95 Ala. 570 , 11 South. 412 , are illustrative. * * * If an order or judgment or decree is made or rendered, which is not the subject of revision by appeal or other revisory remedy, and yet is erroneous, working injury to the party complaining, and there be no other legal remedy, adequate to the correction of the error and the prevention of the injury, mandamus will be awarded.” In Wilson v. Duncan, 114 Ala. 659, 672 , 21 So. 1017 , 1019, this Court, in discussing the function of the writ of mandamus, said

1941It must be a remedy which itself enforces in some way the performance of the particular duty, and not merely a remedy which in the end saves the party to whom the duty is owed unharmed by its nonperformance." In First National Bank v. Cheney, 120 Ala. 117 , 23 So. 733 , 734 , it was said: "As a general rule, it is true that mandamus will not be granted for the correction of an error arising in the progress of a suit, which can be revised on appeal after final judgment. * * * But the appeal must be an adequate remedy.

1939Ex parte Elston, 1854, 25 Ala. 72 .

1930Co., 103 Ala. 418 , 15 So. 836 , 837; Ex parte Fechheimer, 103 Ala. 154 , 15 So. 647 ; Bridgeport Ice Co. v. Bridgeport Land Co., 104 Ala. 276 , 16 So. 93 ; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414 , 39 So. 237 ; Ex parte L. & N. R.

1930Co., 103 Ala. 418 , 15 So. 836 , 837; Ex parte Fechheimer, 103 Ala. 154 , 15 So. 647 ; Bridgeport Ice Co. v. Bridgeport Land Co., 104 Ala. 276 , 16 So. 93 ; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414 , 39 So. 237 ; Ex parte L. & N. R.

1930Co., 103 Ala. 418 , 15 So. 836 , 837; Ex parte Fechheimer, 103 Ala. 154 , 15 So. 647 ; Bridgeport Ice Co. v. Bridgeport Land Co., 104 Ala. 276 , 16 So. 93 ; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414 , 39 So. 237 ; Ex parte L. & N. R.

1930Co., 103 Ala. 418 , 15 So. 836 , 837; Ex parte Fechheimer, 103 Ala. 154 , 15 So. 647 ; Bridgeport Ice Co. v. Bridgeport Land Co., 104 Ala. 276 , 16 So. 93 ; Brady v. Brady, 144 Ala. 414 , 39 So. 237 ; Ex parte L. & N. R.

1913Co., 103 Ala. 415 , 15 South. 836 ; Ex parte Hays, 92 Ala. 120 , 9 South. 156 .

1901In such cases, the rule, in respect to appeals to this court is clearly stated in O’Neal v. Kelly, 72 Ala. 559, as follows: “To remove all uncertainty in Ex parte North ( 49 Ala. 385 ) following the earlier decisions,, it was announced, that from a judgment refusing the application for a rehearing an appeal would lie, because the judgment is final, disposing of the ease, but if the application was erroneously granted, the order granting it was not a final judgment —its effect was, not a disposition of the case, but its restoration to the docket for a new trial; and prior to final judgment, the

1901In such cases, the rule, in respect to appeals to this court is clearly stated in O’Neal v. Kelly, 72 Ala. 559, as follows: “To remove all uncertainty in Ex parte North ( 49 Ala. 385 ) following the earlier decisions,, it was announced, that from a judgment refusing the application for a rehearing an appeal would lie, because the judgment is final, disposing of the ease, but if the application was erroneously granted, the order granting it was not a final judgment —its effect was, not a disposition of the case, but its restoration to the docket for a new trial; and prior to final judgment, the

1901This m the practice which has been since pursued.” — Chastain & Lawrence v. Armstrong, 85 Ala. 215 ; Heflin v. Rock Mills Mfg.

1892The objection that it is an argument would still remain. —Shepperd v. State, 94 Ala. 102 ; Mitchell v. State, Ib. 68; Hornsby v. State, Ib. 56; Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47 ; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45 ; Brantley v. State, Ib. 47; Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63 ; Pellum v. State, Ib. 28.

1892The objection that it is an argument would still remain. —Shepperd v. State, 94 Ala. 102 ; Mitchell v. State, Ib. 68; Hornsby v. State, Ib. 56; Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47 ; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45 ; Brantley v. State, Ib. 47; Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63 ; Pellum v. State, Ib. 28.

1892The objection that it is an argument would still remain. —Shepperd v. State, 94 Ala. 102 ; Mitchell v. State, Ib. 68; Hornsby v. State, Ib. 56; Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47 ; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45 ; Brantley v. State, Ib. 47; Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63 ; Pellum v. State, Ib. 28.

1892The objection that it is an argument would still remain. —Shepperd v. State, 94 Ala. 102 ; Mitchell v. State, Ib. 68; Hornsby v. State, Ib. 56; Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47 ; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45 ; Brantley v. State, Ib. 47; Kirby v. State, 89 Ala. 63 ; Pellum v. State, Ib. 28.

1859Ex parte Cole, 28 Ala. 50 ; Ex parte Robbins, 29 Ala. 71 .