Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Hyde v. State

13 So. 3d 997 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Hyde v. State

26 Citing cases

  1. Phillips v. State

    287 So. 3d 1063 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015)   Cited 14 times
    Noting that the trial court was not required to reference nonstatutory mitigating evidence in its sentencing order and "was not required to ‘find’ this evidence to be mitigating" but, rather, "was required only to ‘consider’ the evidence"

    See, e.g., Stephens, 982 So. 2d at 1147-48, rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Stephens, 982 So. 2d 1148 (Ala. 2006). See also Shaw, 207 So.3d at 111 ; Reynolds v. State, 114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; and Hyde v. State, 13 So. 3d 997 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). Thus, Phillips is not entitled to relief on this claim.

  2. Ex parte Phillips

    284 So. 3d 101 (Ala. 2018)   Cited 21 times

    See, e.g., Stephens, 982 So. 2d at 1147-48, rev'd on other grounds, Ex parte Stephens, 982 So. 2d 1148 (Ala. 2006). See also Shaw [v. State], 207 So. 3d [79] at 130 [ (Ala. Crim App. 2004) ]; Reynolds v. State, 114 So. 3d 61 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) ; and Hyde v. State, 13 So. 3d 997 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). Thus, Phillips is not entitled to relief on this claim."

  3. Stanley v. State

    143 So. 3d 230 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that there was no error in the admission of the victim’s daughter’s testimony because the testimony did not describe the impact of the victim’s death on the daughter and because the testimony tended "to explain the events" relevant to the victim’s murder

    ”Hyde v. State, 13 So.3d 997, 1017 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). Considering all the circumstances of the case, we cannot conclude that the Tuscumbia Police Department officers instigated the search of the Stanleys' apartment; the Berryhills were not acting as instruments or agents of the State in the initial entry into the Stanleys' apartment, and there is no indication that the Berryhills engaged in the search with the intent of assisting the police in their investigation.

  4. Stanley v. State

    No. CR-06-2236 (Ala. Crim. App. Apr. 29, 2011)   1 Legal Analyses

    " Hyde v. State, 13 So. 3d 997, 1017 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). Considering all the circumstances of the case, we cannot conclude that the Tuscumbia Police Department officers instigated the search of the Stanleys' apartment; the Berryhills were not acting as instruments or agents of the State in the initial entry into the Stanleys' apartment, and there is no indication that the Berryhills engaged in the search with the intent of assisting the police in their investigation.

  5. Martin v. State

    62 So. 3d 1050 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)   Cited 28 times

    Although the United States Supreme Court has recognized that a showing of prejudice is not required to establish the ineffectiveness of counsel in circumstances "that are so likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified," United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 658, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984), those circumstances are extremely rare and limited. See Hyde v. State, 13 So.3d 997, 1021 (Ala.Crim.App. 2007) ("Rarely has the United States Supreme Court applied a 'presumed prejudice' standard to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel."). Indeed, they are limited solely to those "situations in which counsel has entirely failed to function as the client's advocate."

  6. Hyde v. Alabama

    558 U.S. 949 (2009)

    Christopher Shane HYDE, petitioner, v. ALABAMA.Case below, 13 So.3d 997. *397Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama denied.

  7. Iervolino v. State

    No. CR-21-0283 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2023)

    We find no plain error in the use of the stun belt. See Floyd v. State, 289 So.3d 337, 369-71 (Ala.Crim.App.2017); Reynolds v. State, 114 So.3d 61, 81-82 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); McMillan v. State, 139 So.3d 184, 228-29 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); Belisle v. State, 11 So.3d 256, 281-82 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), aff'd, 11 So.3d 323 (Ala. 2008); and Hyde v. State, 13 So.3d 997, 1005-07 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).

  8. Bester v. State

    381 So. 3d 1155 (Ala. Crim. App. 2023)

    See Johnson v. State, 611 So. 2d 506, 510 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992)." Hyde v. State, 13 So. 3d 997, 1009-10 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).

  9. Bester v. State

    No. CR-21-0334 (Ala. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2022)

    Hyde v. State, 13 So.3d 997, 1009-10 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).

  10. Stanley v. State

    335 So. 3d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 7 times
    In Stanley v. State, 335 So.3d 1, 21 (Ala.Crim.App.2020), this Court addressed a similar claim alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately cross-examine a State's witness.

    Given the fact that Stanley was on trial for capital murder, the CCSO requiring him to wear ankle shackles during his trial was a reasonable and appropriate safety measure. See Hyde v. State, 13 So. 3d 997, 1007 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007). That Mr. Marthaler and Mr. Gardner did not object to Stanley being tried in ankle shackles, without more, does not prove that they were ineffective.