Moore v. State

I write separately for what I believe to be two important reasons. First, it is particularly important to note, as Justice Shaw correctly explains in his dissent, that the main opinion in Ex parte Pate, 145 So.3d 738 (Ala.2013), was a plurality opinion in which only four Justices concurred and is not binding precedent. 183 So.3d at 1008 n. 5 (Shaw, J., dissenting). The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded its analysis in this case by stating that, if not for the decision in Pate, it would not have reversed the trial court’s judgment convicting Phillip Allen Moore of the offense of menacing.…