Hubbard v. State

58 Citing cases

  1. Ingram v. State

    51 So. 3d 1094 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 13 times
    In Ingram, that fact was clear from the statements contained in the order regarding the trial judge's ‘personal knowledge’ and observations of Ingram's capital-murder trial when the trial judge signing the proposed Rule 32 order did not preside over Ingram's capital-murder trial.

    "'"While the practice of adopting the state's proposed findings and conclusions is subject to criticism, the general rule is that even when the court adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, [498] U.S. [882], 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So.3d 435 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990)." "' Bell v. State, 593 So.2d 123, 126 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, 593 So.2d 123 (Ala.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 991, 112 S.Ct. 2981, 119 L.Ed.2d 599 (1992).'"

  2. Debruce v. State

    890 So. 2d 1068 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    "The Due Process Clause does not require a trial court to approve funds to hire experts to testify at a [post-conviction] hearing. Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673, 688 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), citing Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 900-01 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1041, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). Clearly this Court properly followed the law in denying DeBruce's motion for funds.

  3. Hubbard v. Haley

    317 F.3d 1245 (11th Cir. 2003)   Cited 129 times
    Concluding defendant's statement was freely given even though he had consumed alcohol

    The court of criminal appeals affirmed. See Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). The Supreme Court denied certiorari.

  4. Ingram v. Stewart

    1:17-cv-01464-LSC (N.D. Ala. Mar. 31, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Boyd v. State, 913 So. 2d 1113 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).' Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-05-1805, Sept. 28, 2007] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), [vacated on other grounds by Johnson v. Alabama, 137 S. Ct. 2292 (2017)]. See also Bush v. State, (Ala. Crim. App. 2009); Burgess v. State, 962 So. 2d 272 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); Boyd v. State, 913 So. 2d 1113 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003); Williams v. State, 783 So. 2d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); Ford v. State, 630 So. 2d 111 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991); Hubbard v. State, 584 So. 2d 895 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991).

  5. James v. Culliver

    Civil Action No. CV-10-S-2929-S (N.D. Ala. Sep. 30, 2014)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that a petitioner will be deemed to have procedurally defaulted a claim if the petitioner "fails to initially present a federal claim to the state courts at the time, and in the manner, dictated by the state's procedural rules," and the state court thus decides "that the claim is not entitled to review on its merits"

    "'While the practice of adopting the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is subject to criticism, the general rule is that even when the court adopts proposed findings and conclusions verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So. 2d 895 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So. 2d 864 (Ala. Cr. App. 1 989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882, 111 S. Ct. 230, 112 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435 (Ala. Cr. App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S. Ct. 1938, 109 L. Ed. 2d 301 (1990).'"Wright v. State, 593 So. 2d 111, 117-18 (Ala. Cr. App. 1991), cert. denied, [506] U.S. [844], 113 S. Ct. 132, 121 L. Ed. 2d 86 (1992)."

  6. James v. State

    61 So. 3d 357 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 60 times
    Noting that Rule 24, Ala. R. App. P., requires a statement of reasons for the denial of a request to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, but stating that "Rule 24 ... only applies when a person is seeking to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis" and that "[i]t does not apply to the initial filing of a request for indigency status in the circuit court"

    Boyd v. State, 913 So.2d 1113 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003); Williams v. State, 783 So.2d 108 (Ala. Crim.App. 2000); Ford v. State, 630 So.2d 111 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). "Contrary to McGahee's assertions, the trial court was not obliged to allow him to proceed ex parte in his request for funds to pursue his postconviction claims.

  7. Burgess v. State

    962 So. 2d 272 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 62 times
    Holding that, "when [the appellant] did not present evidence at the evidentiary hearing with regard to [certain] claims . . . , [the state court will] conclude that he has abandoned these claims and . . . will not review them'"

    However, this court has held that indigent defendants are not entitled to funds to hire experts to assist in postconviction litigation. See Ford v. State, 630 So.2d 111 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), aff'd, 630 So.2d 113 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1078, 114 S.Ct. 1664, 128 L.Ed.2d 380 (1994); Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1208, 127 L.Ed.2d 555 (1994); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 900-01 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1041, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)." 783 So.2d at 113.

  8. James v. State

    61 So. 3d 332 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times

    "While the practice of adopting the State's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law is subject to criticism, the general rule is that even when the court adopts proposed findings and conclusions verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); Weeks v. State, 568 So.2d 864 (Ala.Cr. App. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 882, 111 S.Ct. 230, 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990); Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala. Cr.App. 1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 911, 110 S.Ct. 1938, 109 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990).' " Wright v. State, 593 So.2d 111, 117-18 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991), cert. denied, [506] U.S. [844], 113 S.Ct. 132, 121 L.Ed.2d 86 (1992)."

  9. Woods v. State

    957 So. 2d 492 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 24 times
    In Woods v. State, [ 957 So.2d 492 (Ala. Crim.App. 2004)], the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the circuit court's summary dismissal of Woods's postconviction claim that his defense counsel were ineffective for failing to interview member of his family.

    (Woods's amended petition at p. 100) Woods fails to identify 'any issue on appeal [that was] adversely decided because of an incomplete or inaccurate appellate record.' Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 908 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991). . . .

  10. Williams v. State

    783 So. 2d 108 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)   Cited 69 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a finding of no plain error on direct appeal precludes a finding of prejudice under Strickland

    See Ford v. State, 630 So.2d 111 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), aff'd, 630 So.2d 113 (Ala. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1078, 114 S.Ct. 1664, 128 L.Ed.2d 380 (1994); Holladay v. State, 629 So.2d 673 (Ala.Crim.App. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1171, 114 S.Ct. 1208, 127 L.Ed.2d 555 (1994); Hubbard v. State, 584 So.2d 895, 900-01 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1041, 112 S.Ct. 896, 116 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). In denying the appellant's request for funds to hire a psychologist, the circuit court cited Ford, supra, in which we held: