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.
§

Leonard v. State

484 So. 2d 1185 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Leonard v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Russell v. State

    272 So. 3d 1134 (Ala. Crim. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that testimony from the victim’s mother that the victim was "just so full of life" was not victimimpact evidence

    Zuck v. Alabama, 588 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S.Ct. 63, 62 L.Ed. 2d 42 (1979).’ Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185, 1189 (Ala. Crim. App. 1985).""....

  2. Thomas v. State

    8 So. 3d 1018 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that it was not apparent whether the defendant sought to represent himself, or whether he actually sought a continuance to obtain different counsel

    Even if we were to find that the record in this case supported a finding that Thomas knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, the record does not indicate that the trial court properly advised him of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and it did not advise him that he could revoke his waiver at any time during the proceedings. See Williams v. State, 958 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala. Crim.App. 2006), and Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). An argument might be made that the trial court's admonitions to Thomas that he abide by the trial court's rulings on objections and that he conduct himself in a professional manner or he would face possible expulsion from the courtroom were attempts to apprise Thomas of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.

  3. Swindle v. State

    992 So. 2d 780 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008)

    Therefore, this court should reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial. See Farid v. State, 720 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998); Hairgrove v. State, 680 So.2d 946 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). WELCH, Judge (dissenting).

  4. Upshaw v. State

    992 So. 2d 57 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 8 times

    Because the record in this case does not indicate that the trial court ever advised the appellant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and that he had the right to withdraw any waiver of the right to counsel at any time during the proceedings, we should reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial. See Farid v. State, 720 So.2d 998 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998); Hairgrove v. State, 680 So.2d 946 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995); Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

  5. Williams v. State

    958 So. 2d 911 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 4 times

    Even if we were to hold that the appellant impliedly waived his right to counsel when he fired his attorney during a recess in the proceedings, the record in this case does not indicate that the trial court ever advised the appellant about the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation and that he had the right to withdraw any waiver of the right to counsel at any time during the proceedings. See Leonard v. State, 484 So.2d 1185 (Ala.Crim.App. 1985). Accordingly, we must reverse the trial court's judgment and remand this case for a new trial.