From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 30, 1963
154 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1963)

Opinion

6 Div. 1000.

May 30, 1963.

James R. Williams, pro se.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.


Petitioner, James R. Williams, seeks a writ of mandamus to be directed to the "Walker County Circuit Court" to do its "public duty in regards to the petition for writ of error coram nobis" filed by petitioner in said court. The petition was filed here on May 3, 1963. Apparently, the relief sought is to require a ruling on Williams' coram nobis petition filed in said court.

The State has moved to strike the petition for mandamus. The motion is well taken.

There has been filed here a copy of the judgment of the circuit court of Walker County rendered on March 28, 1963, dismissing Williams' petition for coram nobis. The basis for dismissal is the court's finding that "petitioner has already filed a Writ of Error Coram Nobis proceeding in this Court on, to-wit: January 20, 1962, which was heard on its merits on, to-wit: May 10, 1962, and that an order was made by this Court on, to-wit: June 15, 1962 denying petitioner's petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis; and * * * that no new material grounds are alleged in this petition by the petitioner."

Since the trial court has already taken action on the petition for coram nobis, which is the relief sought by the petition for mandamus, the State's motion to strike the petition for mandamus is due to be granted.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON, MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Williams

Supreme Court of Alabama
May 30, 1963
154 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1963)
Case details for

Ex Parte Williams

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte James R. WILLIAMS

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: May 30, 1963

Citations

154 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1963)
154 So. 2d 22

Citing Cases

Ex Parte General Mutual Insurance Company

Unless upon receipt of this opinion by the respondent judge, the order of 28 March 1969 is vacated, and one…