Title: Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Terry Donell Watson v. State of Alabama) (Tuscaloosa Circuit Court: CC-99-487.60; CC-99-1393.60; Criminal Appeals : CR-12-2002). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

Rel: 8/8/2014
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
SPECIAL TERM, 2014
____________________
1130838
____________________
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Terry Donnell Watson
v.
State of Alabama)
(Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, CC-99-487.60 and CC-99-1393.60;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-12-2002)
BRYAN, Justice.
WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.
Moore, C.J., and Bolin, Murdock, and Main, JJ., concur.
Bryan, J., concurs specially.
1130838
BRYAN, Justice (concurring specially).
The State of Alabama filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari requesting this Court to review the Court of
Criminal Appeals' decision in this case on the grounds that a
question before the Court of Criminal Appeals presents a
question of first impression for the Supreme Court of Alabama
and that the Court of Criminal Appeals' decision conflicts
with Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536 (Ala. 2006). See Rule
39(a)(1)(C) and (D), Ala. R. App. P.  I concur in denying the
State's petition for a writ of certiorari based on those two
grounds for certiorari review.  I write specially to note that
my vote to deny the State's petition should not be construed
as approval of this Court's decision in Ex parte Holbert, 4
So. 3d 410 (Ala. 2008), which was decided before I became a
Justice on the Court.  The State did not ask this Court to
consider overruling Ex parte Holbert.
2