Legal Opinion

Barnhill v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 4, 1983PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Barnhill appeals from the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a disciplinary action which resulted in the loss of four months good time. The denial of the petition was proper because Barnhill failed to verify the petition by oath. O'Such v. State, 423 So.2d 317 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982).

However, to expedite matters in the event a proper petition is filed, we note that the record does not contain a written statement by the disciplinary board setting forth the "`evidence relied on and reasons' for the disciplinary action" as required by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Washington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1981
  3. Barker v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1983
  4. O'SUCH v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
  5. Fielding v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1981

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Rice v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1984
  2. Spooner v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1984
  3. Martin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1984
  4. Voudrie v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1984
  5. Garlington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1989

1 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