Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ankrom v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 26, 2011No. CR-09-1148Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWelch, Presiding Judge

The majority affirms Hope Elisabeth Ankrom’s conviction following her guilty plea to chemical endangerment of a child, a violation of § 26-15-3.2, Ala.Code 1975, after reviewing her challenge to the trial court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment. I agree that Ankrom’s conviction is due to be affirmed, but I do not agree that a construction of the statute charging chemical endangerment of a ehild is necessary or proper in this case, and is in fact premature.3 The indictment charg*386ing Ankrom properly charged an offense within the circuit court’s jurisdiction, and her guilty plea…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Moore v. Prudential Residential ServicesSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  2. Lowman v. Piedmont Exec. Shirt Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1989
  3. Ex Parte DeramusSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
  4. Ex Parte FountainSupreme Court of Alabama · 2001
  5. Marshall v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2003

20 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