Gilliland v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Parish v. State

    660 So. 2d 227 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    In Parish v. State, 660 So.2d 227 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), the Court of Criminal Appeals referred frequently to Ex parte Rivers, 597 So.2d 1308 (Ala. 1991), and stated that this Court in Rivers had established what appeared to be a new rule that was "a departure from case law."

    See also Trice v. State, 601 So.2d 180 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992); Brooks v. State, 606 So.2d 615 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Ford v. State, 573 So.2d at 798 ("[t]he reason for [the Willis rule] is because the test for determining the constitutional validity of a guilty plea where the defendant has been given sentencing misinformation and is unaware of the actual sentencing possibilities is whether the accurate information would have made any difference in his decision to enter a plea"). See also Gilliland v. State, 591 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991) (in finding on direct appeal that defendant had been given erroneous information about his eligibility for parole, court remanded for a hearing on appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea to determine whether his plea was induced by the erroneous information); Jackson v. State, 565 So.2d 669 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). However, in reliance on Rivers, we hold that the appellant's issue regarding sentencing misinformation is properly before this court, despite the appellant's failure to object at the plea proceeding, to move for a new trial, or to move to withdraw his guilty plea.