Contreras v. State (In re Contreras)
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Per curiam
The writ of certiorari is quashed.
In quashing the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So.2d 155 (1973).
WRIT QUASHED.
Stuart, C.J., and Parker, Main, Wise, Bryan, and Sellers, JJ., concur.
2DissentMurdock, J.
I concur to quash the writ of certiorari issued in this case.
The facts of this case are thoroughly discussed in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion in Contreras v. State, 257 So.3d 337 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), and in Justice Murdock's dissent.…
3Cases cited18 opinions
- IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assoc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1992
- People v. IrelandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Horsley v. HorsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- People v. WashingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- DeKalb County LP Gas Co., Inc. v. Suburban Gas, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1998
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.