Title: Wilson v. State
Citation: 296 So. 2d 778
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: May 16, 1974

296 So. 2d 778 (1974)
In re Donald WILSON
v.
STATE of Alabama.
Ex parte Donald Wilson.
SC 772.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
May 16, 1974.
Wyman O. Gilmore, Grove Hill, and John L. Lawler, Mobile, for petitioner.
No brief for the State.
PER CURIAM.
Writ denied.
MERRILL, COLEMAN, HARWOOD, BLOODWORTH, McCALL and FAULKNER, JJ., concur.
HEFLIN, C. J., and MADDOX and JONES, JJ., dissent.
JONES, Justice (dissenting).
The opinion of the majority in denying the writ is based on the scope of review issue and does not reach the merits of the case. This scope of review issueRule 39is frequently before us and we have many times cautioned the bar that compliance with this rule of court is jurisdictional. Aycock v. State, 291 Ala. 49, 277 So. 2d 412 (1973).
The purpose of this dissent is not to register disagreement with Rule 39, nor am I in philosophical disagreement with the statutory *779 structure of our intermediate appellate courts which establishes the Court of Civil Appeals and the Court of Criminal Appeals as courts of last resort. (See my dissenting opinion in Mathis v. State, 292 Ala. 732, 296 So. 2d 764 (1974). Rather, the purpose of this dissent is two-fold: first, to register my disagreement with the majority's application of the rules of review in the context of the instant case; and, second, to again caution the practicing bar of this State that Rule 39 is the "road-map" which must be followed as the only route to this Court's review of our intermediate appellate courts.
The Petition for the Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals was originally assigned to me, and in the interest of economy of time I will quote my views of the case from the memorandum prepared by me and distributed to the other members of our Court prior to conference:[1]
HEFLIN, C. J., concurs.
[1]  This was on preliminary consideration only as to whether the writ would be granted, i. e., whether we would agree to review the case.