Williams v. State

The majority affirms this appellant's conviction on the authority of Mims v. State, 591 So.2d 120 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 591 So.2d 120 (Ala. 1991).1 The defendant in Mims was a co-defendant of the appellant and they, along with another co-defendant, see Maul v. State, 598 So.2d 18 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992),2 were tried jointly. Because the appellant raised the same issues as those raised inMims, the majority relies on that case to affirm. I dissent from the majority's holding in Part III ofMims (issue II of the appellant's brief) because I believe that the principles of Batson v.…