From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reeves v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Dec 8, 1987
518 So. 2d 246 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)

Summary

In Reeves, this court remanded the cause to the circuit court for a hearing on the appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis because the attorney general had noted that the denial was premature, as the State had not filed a response to the petition, pursuant to Rule 20.7 (a), Alabama Temporary Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Summary of this case from Glover v. State

Opinion

6 Div. 470.

October 27, 1987. Rehearing Denied December 8, 1987.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William H. Cole, Judge.

Walter Reeves, pro se.

Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


The Attorney General of the State of Alabama moves the court to remand this cause to the circuit court for a hearing on appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis. The Attorney General notes that the denial of the petition was premature, the state having not filed any response to the petition, pursuant to Rule 20.7(a), Alabama Temporary Rules of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

All the Judges concur.


Summaries of

Reeves v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Dec 8, 1987
518 So. 2d 246 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)

In Reeves, this court remanded the cause to the circuit court for a hearing on the appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis because the attorney general had noted that the denial was premature, as the State had not filed a response to the petition, pursuant to Rule 20.7 (a), Alabama Temporary Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Summary of this case from Glover v. State
Case details for

Reeves v. State

Case Details

Full title:Walter REEVES v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Dec 8, 1987

Citations

518 So. 2d 246 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)

Citing Cases

Glover v. State

The appellant argues here that the trial court erred by denying his petition without an evidentiary hearing,…