# Ex Parte Wilson

> Supreme Court of Alabama · August 1, 1963 · 275 Ala. 439

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1112163

## Case

- **Full name:** Ex Parte Ernest Wilson. in Re Ernest Wilson v. State.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** August 1, 1963
- **Citations:** 275 Ala. 439; 155 So. 2d 611; 1963 Ala. LEXIS 684
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Harwood
- **Judges:** Harwood, Livingston, Stmpson, Merrill
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1112163

## Opinion text

HARWOOD, Justice.
This is a petition for a writ of error looking toward a review of a judgment denying the petitioner relief in a coram nobis proceeding. The judgment below was entered after a full hearing.
Coram nobis proceedings are essentially civil in nature, and in Brown v. State, 250 Ala. 444 , 35 So.2d 518 , coram nobis was described as being “in the nature of a new civil suit.”
Under our practice and procedure appeals lie from final judgments denying relief in coram nobis proceedings. Allen v. State, Ala.App., 150 So.2d 399 .
Section 383, Title 15, Code of Alabama 1940, provides: “A writ of error on any judgment rendered in a criminal case may issue * * *.” Under the doctrine of our cases a writ of error may be had only in criminal cases, civil causes being reviewed only by appeal. Smotherman v. State, 140 Ala. 168 , 37 So. 376 , or in appropriate cases by statutory certiorari.
The State of Alabama through its Attorney General has filed a motion to strike this petition for writ of error on the grounds, among others, that (1) a writ of error is not the proper method by which a denial of a petition for coram nobis may be reviewed, and (2) an appeal lies from the denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
Under the controlling doctrines above referred to, the motion of the State is well taken and must be granted.
Record stricken.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and STMPSON and MERRILL, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1112163. Public record. Not legal advice.