Opinion

Harris v. State

  • 43 Ala. App. 708
  • 179 So. 2d 428
  • 1965 Ala. App. LEXIS 330
Court
Alabama Court of Appeals
Filed
Oct 19, 1965
Status
Published
Author
Cates
On the bench
Cates
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.8%

The opinion

CATES, Judge.

The prior opinions of the Court in this coram nobis appeal are withdrawn, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court for the limited purpose of ascertaining (1) whether or not the defendant was indigent at the time of his original trial within the meaning of Seals v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 254 , 85 S.Ct. 943 , 13 L.Ed.2d 818 ; and (2) at what point of time and to what extent, if any, assistance of counsel was available to Harris before the trial court's appointment of Hon. Leonard Lowery on the day of Harris’s arraignment. Lott v. State, 276 Ala. 227 , 160 So.2d 636 .

The need for the second enquiry arises out of the following cases: Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm., 301 U.S. 292 , 57 S.Ct. 724 , 81 L.Ed. 1093 ; Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495 ; Estes v. Bridgforth, 114 Ala. 221 , 21 So. 512 ; Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633 , 31 So. 555 ; and Martin v. Long, 200 Ala. 210 , 75 So. 968 . See Wigmore, Evid. (3d Ed.), § 2568; Preston v. Preston, 253 Ala. 186 , 43 So.2d 398 (hn. 2) ; White Way Pure Milk Co. v. Alabama State Milk Control Board, 265 Ala. 660 , 93 So.2d 509 (hn. 5).

Remanded with directions.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.