Legal Opinion

V.S. v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 1, 2004No. 1030897PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOUSTON, Justice.

We quash this petition for a writ of certiorari on a jurisdictional basis. In Marshall v. State, 884 So.2d 900, 905 (Ala.2003), this Court stated:

“We hereby decline effectively to amend Rule 32[, Ala. R.Crim. P.]; we reaffirm our holdings in Ex parte Weeks[, 611 So.2d 259 (Ala.1992),] and Ex parte Johnson[, 806 So.2d 1195 (Ala.2001) ]; and we reiterate that the writ of mandamus is ‘the only remedy available’ to those, who like Marshall, through no fault of their own, fail to receive notice of the dismissal of their Rule 32 petition in time to effect a timely appeal therefrom.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ex Parte SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
  2. Ex Parte WeeksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1992
  3. Ex Parte FountainSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  4. Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003
  5. Ex Parte JohnsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Loggins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2005
  2. State v. V.S.Supreme Court of Alabama · 2005
  3. Ex Parte StephensCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2005
  4. State of Banking Department v. TaylorSupreme Court of Alabama · 2009
  5. Ex Parte VsSupreme Court of Alabama · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API