Stallworth defense in Alabama

2026Accordingly, we held that "the circuit court did not have the authority to grant Stallworth's motion to dismiss the indictment against him based on a factual determination of the evidence or for the State's failure to object to the motion to dismiss the indictment within a prescribed time, especially where the delay in the filing of the objection was not unreasonable and did not interfere with Stallworth's right to a speedy trial." Id.

2025Relying on Watts, supra, we held that "the circuit court did not have the authority to grant Stallworth's motion to dismiss the indictment against him based on a factual determination of the evidence or for the State's failure to object to the motion to dismiss the indictment within a prescribed time, especially where the delay in the filing of the objection was not unreasonable and did not interfere with Stallworth's right to a speedy trial." Id.

2013“Decisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy.” People v. Rockey, 237 Mich.App. 74, 76 , 601 N.W.2d 887, 890 (1999) (citing People v. Mitchell, 454 Mich. 145, 163 , 560 N.W.2d 600 (1997)). “[A] trial counsel’s choice of whether to call witnesses is generally accorded a presumption of deliberate trial strategy and cannot be subject to second-guessing in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 567, 571 (Ky.Ct.App.2012).

2013“Decisions regarding what evidence to present and whether to call or question witnesses are presumed to be matters of trial strategy.” People v. Rockey, 237 Mich.App. 74, 76 , 601 N.W.2d 887, 890 (1999) (citing People v. Mitchell, 454 Mich. 145, 163 , 560 N.W.2d 600 (1997)). “[A] trial counsel’s choice of whether to call witnesses is generally accorded a presumption of deliberate trial strategy and cannot be subject to second-guessing in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.” Saylor v. Commonwealth, 357 S.W.3d 567, 571 (Ky.Ct.App.2012).

2009See Ex parte McWhorter, 781 So.2d at 339 (“Had an instruction been requested that would have conflicted with defense strategy, there is no error in the trial court’s failure to give the instruction.”); Stallworth v. State, 868 So.2d 1128, 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (trial court did not err in not instructing the jury on lesser-included offenses because “instructing the jury on any lesser-included offense was not consistent with Stallworth’s defense at trial”); and Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 865 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 820 So.2d 883 (Ala.2001) (“When instructions are inconsistent with t

2006BASCHAB, J., recuses herself. 1 "A post-conviction petition is a collateral attack on a prior criminal conviction by which a defendant can assert that a conviction resulted from the substantial denial of his or her constitutional rights, and the purpose of a post-conviction proceeding is not to appeal the defendant's underlying judgment, but rather to resolve allegations that constitutional violations occurred at trial, when those allegations have not been, and could not have been, adjudicated previously." People v. Coulter , 352 Ill.App.3d 151 , 156 , 287 Ill.Dec. 255, 260 , 815 N.E.2d 899 ,

2006BASCHAB, J., recuses herself. 1 "A post-conviction petition is a collateral attack on a prior criminal conviction by which a defendant can assert that a conviction resulted from the substantial denial of his or her constitutional rights, and the purpose of a post-conviction proceeding is not to appeal the defendant's underlying judgment, but rather to resolve allegations that constitutional violations occurred at trial, when those allegations have not been, and could not have been, adjudicated previously." People v. Coulter , 352 Ill.App.3d 151 , 156 , 287 Ill.Dec. 255, 260 , 815 N.E.2d 899 ,

2003As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001): "We quote the following from this Court's opinion in Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851, 853 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), which states the role of the prosecutor: "`It is, of course, the duty of every prosecutor to represent the interests of the state zealously, vigorously, and earnestly.

2003As this Court stated in Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001): "We quote the following from this Court's opinion in Davis v. State, 494 So.2d 851, 853 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), which states the role of the prosecutor: "`It is, of course, the duty of every prosecutor to represent the interests of the state zealously, vigorously, and earnestly.

2003App.), cert. denied, 294 Ala. 201 , 314 So.2d 317 (Ala.1975): "There is no law requiring the recording of testimony before a grand jury in Alabama.

2003He asserts that he is "entitled to a new trial after properly transcribed grand jury proceedings." (Stallworth's brief, p. 98.) This Court stated in Steward v. State, 55 Ala.App. 238 , 314 So.2d 313 (Ala.Crim.

2003He asserts that he is "entitled to a new trial after properly transcribed grand jury proceedings." (Stallworth's brief, p. 98.) This Court stated in Steward v. State, 55 Ala.App. 238 , 314 So.2d 313 (Ala.Crim.