Case ID: so3d_80/html/0303-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. STUART, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re Thomas Robert LANE v. STATE of Alabama).
    1091045.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    Aug. 19, 2011.
    
      Troy King, atty. gen., and Kevin W. Blackburn, asst. atty. gen., for petitioner.
    Randall S. Susskind and Charlotte R. Morrison, Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery; and Glenn Davidson, Mobile, for respondent.
    
      
       Justice Shaw, Justice Main, and Justice Wise were members of the Court of Criminal Appeals when that court considered this case.
    
   On Application for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF MAY 27, 2011, WITHDRAWN; WRIT QUASHED.

MALONE, C.J., and WOODALL, BOLIN, PARKER, and MURDOCK, JJ., concur.

STUART, J., dissents.

SHAW, MAIN, and WISE, JJ., recuse themselves.

STUART, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to grant Thomas Robert Lane’s application for rehearing and to withdraw the opinion issued on May 27, 2011, and quash the writ. I disagree with the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the trial court erred in removing Lane’s appointed counsel. I believe that the record will reflect that a conflict of interest or the potential for a conflict of interest existed and that the trial court properly granted the State’s motion to dismiss Lane’s appointed counsel. Moreover, if I were to determine that the trial court erred in dismissing Lane’s appointed counsel, I would conclude that the error was not structural. The proper inquiry is whether the indigent defendant suffered prejudice by the erroneous removal of court-appointed counsel. Cf. State v. Reeves, 11 So.3d 1031 (La.2009); Daniels v. Lafler, 501 F.3d 735, 740 (6th Cir.2007); and United States v. Basham, 561 F.3d 302 (4th Cir.2009).