Case ID: so2d_406/html/1045-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EMBRY, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte Lloyd ANDREWS. (Re Lloyd Andrews v. State of Alabama).
    81-28.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Nov. 25, 1981.
    S. Fleetwood Carnley, Elba, for petitioner.
    Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
   EMBRY, Justice.

We are compelled to point out that, although petitioner’s statement of additional facts, per Rule 39(k), ARAP, is difficult to digest because it is not in narrative form as contemplated by the rule, nevertheless it could be accepted as sufficient. We must deny the writ, however, because no ground specified in Rule 39 is alleged as a basis for issuance of same.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, AL-MON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.