Weeks v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Madison v. Comm'r, Ala. Dep't of Corr.

    851 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Describing Alabama’s argument that "only a prisoner suffering from gross delusions can show incompetency under Panetti "

    The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has twice held that § 15-16-23 precludes appellate review of the trial court's competency determination, and these decisions have not been overruled. SeeWeeks v. State , 663 So.2d 1045, 1046 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (granting state's motion to dismiss appeal because Ala. Code § 15-16-23"clearly states that a finding by the trial court on the issue of insanity, as it relates to this statute, is not reviewable by any other court"); Magwood v. State , 449 So.2d 1267, 1268 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) (concluding that it did not have jurisdiction over appeal under § 15-16-23 and declining to "creat[e] a right of appellate review contrary to the explicit language of the statute"). On this basis, we conclude that Mr. Madison properly exhausted the available state court remedies.

  2. Madison v. Dunn

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-00191-KD-M (S.D. Ala. May. 10, 2016)

    Thus, he contends that he has exhausted his state remedies. In support, he relies on Weeks v. State, 663 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) and Magwood v. State, 449 So. 2d 1267 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984). Both cases held that § 15-16-23 decisions were not reviewable.

  3. Searcy v. State

    No. CR-10-0950 (Ala. Crim. App. Jul. 8, 2011)   Cited 5 times

    Harris v. State, 44 Ala. App. 632, 632, 218 So. 2d 285, 286 (1969).See also Hart v. State, 939 So. 2d 948 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) (no right to appeal a circuit court's ruling vacating a death sentence and imposing a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole based on the Supreme Court's decision inRoper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), barring a death sentence for anyone under the age of 18 at the time of the offense); Weeks v. State, 663 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995) (death-row inmate could not appeal a § 15-16-23, Ala. Code 1975, finding that the inmate/defendant is not insane); Hughes v. State, 45 Ala. App. 250, 251, 228 So. 2d 862, 863 (Ala. Crim. App. 1969) (order denying probation is not appealable). We have held that motions filed pursuant § 13A-5-9.

  4. Alabama Department of Mental Health & Mental Retardation ex rel. McClothan v. State

    873 So. 2d 1176 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003)   Cited 8 times

    We have held that this finding is not reviewable by any court. See Weeks v. State, 663 So.2d 1045 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995). Because there is no provision in Rule 25 for an appeal from a ruling on such a motion, we have no choice but to dismiss this appeal.