Ex Parte Farrell

29 Citing cases

  1. Ex Parte J.D.G

    604 So. 2d 378 (Ala. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    Law Criminology 314, 324 (1990). In Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444 (Ala. 1992), the 18-year-old defendant was arrested for first degree robbery; the defendant applied for youthful offender status pursuant to § 15-19-1 et seq. From the record before the trial court, it was clear that the trial court denied the petition for youthful offender status simply because of the severity of the charge itself, first degree robbery. We held that the trial court erred in denying the petition solely on the basis of the criminal charge in and of itself.

  2. Flowers v. State

    922 So. 2d 938 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 41 times
    Reviewing for plain error the appellant’s constitutional challenges to the death penalty because the specific claims the appellant raised on appeal were not presented to the trial court

    He asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request based solely on the severity of the capital-murder charges. Flowers cites the Alabama Supreme Court decision in Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444 (Ala. 1991), to support his contention. The record shows that Flowers filed an application for YO status.

  3. Thompson v. State

    310 So. 3d 850 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that Rule 32 petitioner failed to sufficiently plead his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for not asking prospective jurors whether any of them had attended the memorial service for the victims or had watched a television program in which the facts of the murders were described because the petitioner "pleaded the name of no juror who had attended the memorial service or who had watched the [television] episode"

    "[i]n determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discretion. Morgan v. State, 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala. Cr. App. 1978) ; see also, Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 449–50, n. 3 (Ala. 1991). There is no set method for considering a motion requesting such treatment.

  4. Wilson v. State

    142 So. 3d 732 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 59 times
    Holding that it was not improper for the prosecutor to swing a baseball bat during closing arguments in a case where the evidence indicated that the defendant had attacked the victim with a baseball bat

    “ ‘ “In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discretion. Morgan v. State, 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); see, also, Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 449–50, n. 3 (Ala.1991). There is no set method for considering a motion requesting such treatment.

  5. H. A. M. v. State

    83 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    628 So.2d at 1036, quoting A.W.M., 627 So.2d at 1154. Similarly, in Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444 (Ala.1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that the criminal charge alone can not support a judicial ruling denying youthful-offender status. The same rationale applies to the present case.

  6. H.A.M. v. State

    No. CR-09-1517 (Ala. Crim. App. Apr. 29, 2011)

    628 So. 2d at 1036, quotingA.W.M., 627 So. 2d at 1154. Similarly, in Ex parte Farrell, 591 So. 2d 444 (Ala. 1991), the Alabama Supreme Court stated that the criminal charge alone can not support a judicial ruling denying youthful-offender status. The same rationale applies to the present case.

  7. McWhorter v. State

    781 So. 2d 257 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 76 times
    Discussing cases holding that no error occurred when a trial court failed to instruct the jury on lesser-included offenses where the instructions would have been inconsistent with the defense trial strategy

    The trial court then asked the prosecutor what he would expect the evidence to establish. The trial court indicated that it had reviewed Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444 (Ala. 1991), which held that an individual may not be denied youthful offender status based solely on the nature of the charge. However, the case further established that the nature of the fact situation on which the charge was based may be grounds for denying youthful offender status.

  8. Farrell v. State

    591 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)

    TAYLOR, Judge. As directed by the Supreme Court of Alabama in Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444 (1991), the appellant's conviction of first degree robbery is reversed and this cause is remanded "to the trial court with instructions to enter an order granting [appellant's] petition for youthful offender status and to conduct further proceedings necessary to the disposition of the case under the youthful offender statutes." Farrell, 591 So.2d at 450.

  9. Taylor v. Culliver

    Case No. 4:09-cv-00251-KOB-TMP (N.D. Ala. Sep. 26, 2012)   Cited 8 times

    He alleges that his trial counsel offered no evidence of his "psychological or social background, in particular the available evidence of his relative immaturity." (Doc. 36-1, p. 56 (citing Ex parte Farrell, 591 So. 2d 444, 448 (Ala. 1991))). In addition, Taylor concedes that counsel filed two subsequent motions for the trial court to reconsider its denial, but he argues effort was ineffective as well because counsel provided no grounds for reconsideration, grounds such as "the court could not summarily deny youthful offender status without indicating the basis for its order."

  10. W.F., W. L.C. v. State (In re W.F.)

    214 So. 3d 1153 (Ala. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    "Complicity is a theory for imposing criminal culpability, for which aiding and abetting may be an element." Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.1991). In the circuit court, however, the State did not pursue a complicity theory by attempting to prove that each of the petitioners rendered assistance to the others in the commission of hunting offenses.