Case ID: so2d_453/html/1066-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BARRON, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte State of Alabama. In re: STATE of Alabama v. Michael Edward WATERS.
    3 Div. 761.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
    March 9, 1983.
    Rehearing Denied March 28, 1983.
    Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G.L. Marston, III., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
    George W. Cameron, and Billy Foxworth, Montgomery, for respondent.
    DeCARLO, P.J., and TYSON, HARRIS and BOWEN, JJ., concur.
   BARRON, Judge

(dissenting).

On the basis of the record before us, to which we are restricted in our resolution of this issue, I find no evidence that the trial judge arrogated to himself any power that is solely within the province of the jury, or that any unusual circumstances exist amounting to a judicial usurpation of powers by the trial judge. A review of the correctness of the trial judge’s decision to grant a motion for a new trial is not within the purview of mandamus. In my view, intervention by mandamus is not merited. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

Judgment reversed, Ala., 453 So.2d 1066, on remand, Ala.Cr.App., 453 So.2d 1067.