From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoppins v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 6, 1983
451 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1983)

Summary

In Hoppins, the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Court of Criminal Appeals has discretion not to dismiss an appeal in the same paragraph in which it recognized that rule 45B superseded § 12-22-240.

Summary of this case from Bedford v. Attorney General of Alabama

Opinion

82-431.

May 6, 1983.

Appeal from the Escambia County Circuit Court, Douglas S. Webb, J.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Helen P. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

B.F. Lovelace, Brewton, for respondent.


Glennon Hoppins filed two petitions for writ of habeas corpus, pro se, in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama. The trial court dismissed his petitions because he had failed to pay the docket fee prescribed by Code 1975, § 12-19-70. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed. 451 So.2d 363.

The only issue presented on appeal is whether the appellate court erred in its application of 45B, A.R.A.P. That rule states:

"In all cases appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, except those in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall consider only questions or issues presented in briefs on appeal."

Rule 45B, A.R.A.P.

In its brief, the State argues that because the petitioner filed no brief and therefore raised no issues on appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reviewing the record on appeal. We disagree.

This Court approved Rule 45B, A.R.A.P. (effective January 1, 1982), which abolished the "search the record rule" set out in Code 1975, § 12-22-240. That statute stated in part that the Court of Criminal Appeals "must consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved in the circuit court." Code 1975, § 12-22-240. In approving Rule 45B, this Court did not intend to restrict the authority of the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider obvious errors, but we instead intended to say that that court was no longer obligated to search the record. Any language in Rule 45B indicating otherwise is contrary to the intended effect of that provision.

WRIT DENIED.

MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, SHORES, EMBRY, BEATTY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hoppins v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 6, 1983
451 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1983)

In Hoppins, the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Court of Criminal Appeals has discretion not to dismiss an appeal in the same paragraph in which it recognized that rule 45B superseded § 12-22-240.

Summary of this case from Bedford v. Attorney General of Alabama

In Hoppins, the Alabama Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Court of Criminal Appeals has discretion not to dismiss an appeal in the same paragraph in which it recognized that rule 45B superceded § 12-22-240.

Summary of this case from Bedford v. Attorney General of Alabama
Case details for

Hoppins v. State

Case Details

Full title:Ex Parte: State of Alabama (Re: Glennon HOPPINS v. STATE of Alabama)

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 6, 1983

Citations

451 So. 2d 365 (Ala. 1983)

Citing Cases

Bedford v. Attorney General of Alabama

(emphasis added). The Alabama Supreme Court had occasion to consider the applicability of the old rule to a…

Bedford v. Attorney General of Alabama

(emphasis added). The Alabama Supreme Court had occasion to consider the applicability of the old rule to a…