Ex Parte Soto
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Concurrence
I agree with the majority that Aurora Mercedes Soto's petition for the writ of certiorari is due to be denied.
Soto's bare allegation that she "would . . . argue that the record in [her] case does not support a guilty finding on the charge of making a terrorist threat" fails to state or support any of the grounds for issuing the writ set forth in Rule 39(a)(1), Ala. R.App. P. Moreover, Soto did not address in her petition the finding by the Court of Criminal Appeals, in its unpublished memorandum, that she failed to preserve her constitutional challenge to Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-10-15. See Rice…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Chaplinsky v. New HampshireSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- R. A. v. v. City of St. PaulSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Schenck v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Virginia v. BlackSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Watts v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.