Case Title: Ex parte Wendell Hightower.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1140628

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2015-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL:04/17/2015
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2014-2015
____________________
1140628
____________________
Ex parte Wendell Hightower
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Wendell Hightower
v.
State of Alabama)
(Mobile Circuit Court, CC-94-1984 and CC-94-1985;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-13-1539)
BOLIN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1140628
Murdock, Main, and Bryan, JJ., concur.
Moore, C.J., concurs specially.
2
1140628
MOORE, Chief Justice (concurring specially).  
I concur in denying Wendell Hightower's petition for a
writ of certiorari. Effective March 13, 2014, the Alabama
Legislature repealed § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, which
provided 
for 
the 
filing 
of 
motions 
for 
sentence
reconsideration by certain inmates, also referred to 
as 
"Kirby
motions." See Kirby v. State, 899 So. 2d 968 (Ala. 2004); see
also Gill v. State, [Ms. 1130649, June 20, 2014] ___ So. 3d
___, ___ (Ala. 2014)(Moore, C.J., dissenting)(discussing the
repeal of § 13A-5-9.1). 
Hightower, an inmate, filed his fourth motion for
sentence reconsideration in May 2014, 
after the 
effective date
of the repeal of § 13A-5-9.1. Therefore, his motion for
sentence reconsideration was properly denied. However,
Hightower alleges in his petition that he had filed a third
motion for sentence reconsideration in June 2013, before the
repeal of § 13A-5-9.1, and that the trial court never ruled on
that 
motion. 
Hightower's 
third 
motion 
for 
sentence
reconsideration is not before us, but if, as Hightower
alleges, that motion was filed before the repeal of § 13A-5-
9.1 and remains pending, Hightower may still have available to
3
1140628
him the remedy of sentence reconsideration. If the trial court
has indeed not ruled on Hightower's June 2013 motion for
sentence reconsideration, then mandamus relief may be
available to compel a ruling on that motion. See Ex parte
Barnett, 858 So. 2d 948, 949 (Ala. 2003).
  
4