# Hall v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · July 31, 1984 · 455 So. 2d 278

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7535883

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl Hall v. State.
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** July 31, 1984
- **Citations:** 455 So. 2d 278; 1984 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 5486
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Harris
- **Judges:** Harris
- **Cited by:** 1 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/7535883

## Opinion text

HARRIS, Judge.
Carl Hall’s petition to the Escambia Circuit Court for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the propriety of a state disciplinary board proceeding, was dismissed without a hearing on the ground that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper remedy. This ruling was erroneous.
Hall, the appellant herein, sought, by petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to challenge the results of his disciplinary proceeding which deprived him of two years of his “good time” credit and upgraded his custody status. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was the proper method for making such a challenge. See, Williams v. Davis, 386 So.2d 415 (Ala.1980); see also, Washington v. State, 405 So.2d 62 (Ala. Crim.App.1981); Fielding v. State, 409 So.2d 964 (Ala.Crim.App.1981).
Consequently, this cause is due to be reversed and remanded for further consideration by the trial court, including, if necessary, a hearing to develop the facts essential for properly determining the merits of appellant’s petition. See, Crear v. State, [Ms. 82-417, Nov. 10, 1983] (Ala. 1983); Washington v. State, supra; Fielding v. State, supra; Gibson v. State, 411 So.2d 1297 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Wilburn v. State, 432 So.2d 524 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983). The record before us, which essentially contains only appellant’s pro se petition to the trial court, is not sufficient for a proper determination at this writing of the merits of the petition or the propriety of a dismissal on other grounds.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All the Judges concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7535883. Public record. Not legal advice.