Morrison v. State

107 Citing cases

  1. Hinton v. State

    172 So. 3d 249 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    In Hinton v. State, CR-04-0940, 2006 WL 1125605, (Ala.Crim.App., Apr. 28, 2006), an inmate used Rule 32 to obtain discovery of ballistics evidence and to have it retested by his own experts in order to challenge the state's trial evidence that the same gun had been used in three different crimes.

    Therefore, we question whether it is properly before this court. SeeMorrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App.1989).

  2. Musgrove v. State

    144 So. 3d 410 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013)   Cited 5 times
    In Musgrove v. State, 144 So. 3d 410, 439 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012), this Court held that an expert opinion on eyewitness identification, sought for the first time after trial, amounted to nothing more than impeachment of the eyewitness.

    United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 338 U.S. 338, 342, 70 S.Ct. 177, 179, 94 L.Ed. 150 (1949); see also Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 2182, 72 L.Ed.2d 606 (1982).” [Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.], 470 U.S. [564] at 573–74, 105 S.Ct. [1504] at 1511 [ (1985) ].' “Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435, 436–37 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); see also Barbour v. State, 903 So.2d at 862.”Jackson v. State, 963 So.2d 150, 154–55 (Ala.Crim.App.2006)

  3. Musgrove v. State

    No. CR-07-1528 (Ala. Crim. App. Nov. 2, 2012)

    [Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C.], 470 U.S. [564] at 573-74, 105 S. Ct. [1504] at 1511 [(1985)].'"Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435, 436-37 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989); see also Barbour v. State, 903 So. 2d at 862."Jackson v. State, 963 So. 2d 150, 154-55 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)

  4. Hamm v. Allen

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:06-cv-00945-KOB (N.D. Ala. Mar. 27, 2013)   Cited 3 times

    The claim was not presented to the trial court, and it cannot now be considered on appeal. See, e.g., Morrison v. State, 551 So. 2d 435, 437 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989).Even if the claim had been presented in the postconviction petition, it would have been procedurally barred from review because it could have been, but was not, raised at trial and on direct appeal.

  5. Hamm v. State

    913 So. 2d 460 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 121 times
    Holding that Rule 32 petitioner had no right to counsel in Rule 32 proceedings

    "'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)."

  6. Taylor v. State

    10 So. 3d 1037 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 9 times
    In Taylor the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals specifically held that `it is not per se ineffective assistance for counsel to concede a client's limited guilt.

    "'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)."

  7. Giles v. State

    906 So. 2d 963 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 25 times

    ' Id., 470 U.S. at 573-74, 105 S.Ct. at 1511." Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435, 436-37 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989), quoting Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, N.C., 470 U.S. 564, 572, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985). Giles filed this action in the circuit court.

  8. Wood v. State

    891 So. 2d 398 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that juror-misconduct claims are nonjurisdictional

    Therefore, it is not properly before this court. See Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, the appellant was also represented by two other attorneys who each had more than five years of experience in the practice of criminal law.

  9. Wood v. State

    No. CR-01-0700 (Ala. Crim. App. Jan. 6, 2004)   1 Legal Analyses

    Therefore, it is not properly before this court. See Morrison v. State, 551 So.2d 435 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989). Moreover, the appellant was also represented by two other attorneys who each had more than five years of experience in the practice of criminal law.

  10. Pierce v. State

    851 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 23 times
    In Pierce v. State, 851 So.2d 558 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), this Court affirmed the denial of a Rule 32 petition where the defendant argued that the record was incomplete but the defendant was represented by the same attorney on appeal as in the trial court.

    Therefore, this issue is not preserved for our review. 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).