Knight motion in Alabama

2025After the hearing, the Walker Circuit Court granted Knight's motion to enforce the settlement agreement, "basing its order on the evidence submitted at the hearing on the motion." Knight, 559 So. 2d at 565 .

2025The evidence submitted at the hearing consisted of " 'facts as stipulated and agreed upon by the parties.' " Id.

2016“This Court granted certiorari review to consider the validity of an administrative order of the Montgomery Circuit Court pursuant to which a circuit judge was appointed to decide James Sheridan Knight’s motion for sentence reconsideration filed under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-9.1, and Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004).” 92 So.3d at 717 .

2016“This Court granted certiorari review to consider the validity of an administrative order of the Montgomery Circuit Court pursuant to which a circuit judge was appointed to decide James Sheridan Knight’s motion for sentence reconsideration filed under Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-5-9.1, and Kirby v. State, 899 So.2d 968 (Ala.2004).” 92 So.3d at 717 .

2011The issue presented by Knight, and the issue addressed by the majority, is whether option (2) is defective because it “leaves to the circuit clerk the task of selecting a circuit judge to hear a motion for sentence reconsideration,” 92 So.3d at 721, whereas “the order in Owens [v. State, 39 So.3d 1183 (Ala.Crim.App.2009),] selected the specific judge to whom any given motion for sentence reconsideration would be assigned, rather than leaving that selection to the circuit clerk.” 92 So.3d at 720-21.

2011Knight v. State (No. CR-08-1681, Dec. 4, 2009), 64 So.3d 1160 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (table).

2005The law does not declare that any thing less than actual sexual intercourse is a sufficient provocation, as a matter of law, to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter." *477 Hooks v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 168 , 13 So. 767 , 768 (1893).

2005In Mitchell v. State , 913 So.2d 501 (Ala.Crim.App. 2005), this Court stated: "Reserving the right to appeal an issue is not the equivalent of preserving an issue for appellate review.

2005He also relies on a New Jersey case, State v. Vigilante, 257 N.J.Super. 296 , 608 A.2d 425 (1992), that, he argues, acknowledged that "heat of passion can be generated by a course of conduct rather than a single incident." (Knight's brief at page 30.) According to § 13A-6-2(b), Ala. Code 1975, a person is not guilty of murder if "he was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation required by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself." The Alabama Supreme Court first recognized the legal principal addressed in §

2005He also relies on a New Jersey case, State v. Vigilante, 257 N.J.Super. 296 , 608 A.2d 425 (1992), that, he argues, acknowledged that "heat of passion can be generated by a course of conduct rather than a single incident." (Knight's brief at page 30.) According to § 13A-6-2(b), Ala. Code 1975, a person is not guilty of murder if "he was moved to act by a sudden heat of passion caused by provocation required by law, and before there had been a reasonable time for the passion to cool and for reason to reassert itself." The Alabama Supreme Court first recognized the legal principal addressed in §

2005Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. "(b) `Severe mental disease or defect' does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. "(c) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence." The identical issue presented in this case was addressed in-depth by this Court in Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276 (Ala. Crim.App.1996): "[Williams] argues that § 13A-3-1 is unconstitutional because, he says, it violates his rights to due process, equal protection, trial by jury, and pr