Title: Ex parte Johnny Luke. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Johnny Luke v. State of Alabama)(Russell Circuit Court: CC82-320.62; Criminal Appeals : CR-09-0414). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1091202
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: August 20, 2010

REL: 08/20/2010
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, 2010
____________________
1091202
____________________
Ex parte Johnny Luke
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Johnny Luke
v.
State of Alabama)
(Russell Circuit Court, CC-82-320.62;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-0414)
SMITH, Justice.
WRIT DENIED.  NO OPINION.
1091202
2
Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, Bolin, Parker, and Murdock, JJ.,
concur.  
Cobb, C.J., dissents.
1091202
3
COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting).
The petitioner, Johnny Luke, asserts that his indictment
was 
defective 
and 
that 
the 
alleged 
defects 
were
jurisdictional.  In making this argument, Luke contends that
this Court should overrule Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536
(Ala. 2006), in which this Court overturned settled precedent
and held that the failure to allege an essential element of an
offense in an indictment is not a jurisdictional defect.  Ex
parte Seymour was wrongly decided, as noted in my dissent in
A.L.L. v. State, [Ms. 1080395, August 21, 2009] __ So. 3d __,
__ (Ala. 2009) (Cobb, C.J., dissenting), and as further
discussed by Justice Murdock in his dissent in the same case,
__ So. 3d at __ (Murdock, J., dissenting).  See also Ex parte
Miller, [Ms. 1080782, Dec. 18, 2009] __ So. 3d __, __ (Ala.
2009) (Cobb, C.J., dissenting).  "Seymour's most glaring
defect is that it abrogates an express provision of the
Alabama Constitution: 'No person shall for any indictable
offense be proceeded against criminally by information ....'
Ala. Const. 1901, Art. I, § 8." A.L.L., __ So. 3d at __ n.5
(Cobb, C.J., dissenting).  I believe this Court should grant
the writ in this case and revisit Ex parte Seymour.