Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Stategreen2 sentences2008See also A.R.Cr.P. 26.6(b)(3)(ii). ‘This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove.’ Connolly v. State, 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).” Cooper v. State, 632 So.2d 1342, 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala.1994) (“The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. 2002"This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove ." Connolly v. State , 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).' *Page 4 " Cooper v. State , 632 So.2d 1342 , 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala. 1994) (`The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. | 4 | 4 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See also A.R.Cr.P. 26.6(b)(3)(ii). ‘This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove.’ Connolly v. State, 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).” Cooper v. State, 632 So.2d 1342, 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala.1994) (“The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. 2002"This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove ." Connolly v. State , 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).' *Page 4 " Cooper v. State , 632 So.2d 1342 , 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala. 1994) (`The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. | 3 | 4 |
Cooper v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See also A.R.Cr.P. 26.6(b)(3)(ii). ‘This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove.’ Connolly v. State, 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).” Cooper v. State, 632 So.2d 1342, 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala.1994) (“The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. 2002"This requires only that the defendant be notified before each sentencing hearing that the HFOA [Habitual Felony Offender Act] will be applied and what convictions the State will attempt to prove ." Connolly v. State , 602 So.2d at 454 (emphasis added [in Cooper ]).' *Page 4 " Cooper v. State , 632 So.2d 1342 , 1343-44 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993), aff'd, 632 So.2d 1344 (Ala. 1994) (`The record in this case shows that the appellant was not given notice, prior to the third sentencing hearing, of the convictions the state intended to prove. | 3 | 4 |
Perry v. Stategreen1 sentence2008At the hearing, the appellant made numerous and timely objections to the failure to give notice.”).’ “709 So.2d at 1323.” Perry v. State, 861 So.2d 1, 3-4 (Ala.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence1992Because the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence the defendant at the second sentencing hearing, the State should again give the defendant notice of the convictions it intends to use at this third sentencing hearing, so that the defendant, the trial court, and any reviewing court may know just which convictions are going to be used under the provisions of the Habitual Felony Offender Act." State v. Jackson, 566 So.2d at 760. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ex Parte Salter
green
1 sentence2004Ex parte Salter , 520 So.2d 213 , 216 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987). 14 The laundry list of those issues, as stated in Giles's brief, are: failure to object to the malice instruction, failure to object to the particularized-intent instruction, failure to secure the suppression of Giles's allegedly inadmissible statement and to raise the issue on appeal, failure to object to the presence of his codefendant at Giles's trial, failure to secure an impartial jury, failure to investigate the culpability of Aaron Jones, failure to present mitigation evidence in support of a case for life imprisonment without | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2004"This Court has held that the date of entry by the clerk, rather than the date the judgment is rendered, should be used when computing the time within which the notice of appeal must be filed." Ex parte Potts , 814 So.2d 836 , 838 n. 1 (Ala. 2001). 7 We note that this third amended petition was filed well outside the filing deadline set by the circuit court. 8 This does not prevent a petitioner from raising a Brady claim as a newly discovered evidence claim under Rule 32.1(e), Ala.R.Crim.P. 9 The record shows that the charges against Nelson had been dismissed. 10 One witness was cross-examined 2004"This Court has held that the date of entry by the clerk, rather than the date the judgment is rendered, should be used when computing the time within which the notice of appeal must be filed." Ex parte Potts , 814 So.2d 836 , 838 n. 1 (Ala. 2001). 7 We note that this third amended petition was filed well outside the filing deadline set by the circuit court. 8 This does not prevent a petitioner from raising a Brady claim as a newly discovered evidence claim under Rule 32.1(e), Ala.R.Crim.P. 9 The record shows that the charges against Nelson had been dismissed. 10 One witness was cross-examined | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ex Parte Potts
green
1 sentence2004"This Court has held that the date of entry by the clerk, rather than the date the judgment is rendered, should be used when computing the time within which the notice of appeal must be filed." Ex parte Potts , 814 So.2d 836 , 838 n. 1 (Ala. 2001). 7 We note that this third amended petition was filed well outside the filing deadline set by the circuit court. 8 This does not prevent a petitioner from raising a Brady claim as a newly discovered evidence claim under Rule 32.1(e), Ala.R.Crim.P. 9 The record shows that the charges against Nelson had been dismissed. 10 One witness was cross-examined | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Clements v. State
green
1 sentence2002At the hearing, the appellant made numerous and timely objections to the failure to give notice.')." 709 So.2d at 1323 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Stewart v. State
green
1 sentence1999Stewart v. State, [Ms. CR-90-0415, March 22, 1996] 730 So.2d 1203 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hinton v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990Indeed, Hinton v. State , 473 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 1985), and Porter v. State , 505 So.2d 1292 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), both stand for the proposition that the State may use at a second sentencing hearing convictions other than those it used at the first hearing, provided that proper notice had been given both times , as it was here. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Porter v. State
neutral
1 sentence1990Indeed, Hinton v. State , 473 So.2d 1125 (Ala. 1985), and Porter v. State , 505 So.2d 1292 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), both stand for the proposition that the State may use at a second sentencing hearing convictions other than those it used at the first hearing, provided that proper notice had been given both times , as it was here. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.