Court Opinion

ID: 9699179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:12:23.915139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:47.035564
License: Public Domain

CATES, Judge
(concurring specially).
The instant coram nobis petition was filed in the Walker Circuit Court August 22, 1962. The State filed an opposing motion. Then, on January 11, 1963, Hon. Roy Mayhall set the matter for hearing February 18, 1963.
On page 97 of the record we find:
“In regard to requested witness Ralph Keene, the petitioner reported to the Court that Keene had told him some one else had told him (Keene) certain information about the case indicating the Martins put the blame on Burton in return for the promise from someone-Mmknown to the petitioner, promising them probation. Attorneys for the respondent contended that Keene’s testimony would be hearsay. The Court denied the request of petitioner to have Keene returned to testify in his behalf on the grounds that even if Keene was present in Court, his testimony would not be admissible in as much as it was hearsay.”
This matter I consider to be merely the judge’s opinion, since it carried with it no words of adjudication as to any request for process to obtain the presence of Keene at the coram nobis hearing.
Moreover, the circuit clerk testified, and I excerpt from his cross-examination:
“Q. When did they bring witnesses in to be subpoenaed on this case?
“A. They gave it to one of the clerks. I have it on the book the date.
“COURT: You mean on the hearing today?
“WITNESS : I will bring it right in. It won’t take but a minute.
“(Witness leaves witness stand to get the records)
“Q. When does it show the witnesses were turned in or does it show ?
“A. On the 14th day of February, 1963.
“Q. How many of those witnesses does your record show was served by any Sheriff of the State of Alabama?
“A. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Ten.
“Q. Which ones were served?
“A. J. D. Turner, James E. Wilson, Bruce Myers, Blanton Bennett, Harvey Jackson, Ulas Tidwell, Charlie Harbison, Buster Poore, Nelson Allen, Virginia Burton, Howard Turner, Theo Darty and Judge Blanton.
“Q. There were two not served?
“A. Powell Martin and Red Gurganus.
“Q. What about Ralph Keene?
*253“A. We did not send them. We wrote them out, but did not send them to Kilby Prison.
“Q. James and Alton Williams or Ralph Keene ?
“A. They were not sent although we received them and wrote them out.
“Q. Your records don’t show they were served?
“A. No. As far as I know they don’t know anything about the hearing.
“MR. BEAIRD: That is all.
“RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY: Mr. Leon Beaird:
“Q. The reason they were not served you knew they were in prison and it would take a judge’s order to get them up here.
“A. Yes, sir, all three witnesses were sentenced while I have been Clerk and I sent the transcripts to Kilby. I knew where they were.
“RE-CROSS EXAMINATION: By Mr. Beaird:
“Q. What law is it that requires that?
“A. Not being a lawyer I can’t state which one. I do know for a, fact the judge has to order it. They can not be subpoenaed.
“Q. You know it’s the law of this state before you can subpoena witnesses from Kilby?
“A. That is right.
“MR. BEAIRD: That is all.
“MR. TYSON: That is all.”
Thus it is clear to me that the trial judge at coram nobis was, in the quoted matter, merely reciting a representation of Burton’s. This was by way of and incorporated in his summation of the evidence leading up to his subsequent finding of facts on which he premised his, judgment denying coram nobis. Dawson v. Campbell, 270 Ala. 586, 120 So.2d 727; Cosby v. State, 42 Ala.App. 160, 156 So.2d 793.
The court below never had before it a sworn petition to bring Keene from the penitentiary. Nor was there a request to take his deposition.
In Magee v. State, Ala.App., 187 So.2d 274,1 May 21, 1966, we affirmed for failure to comply with the conditions set forth in either Code 1940, T. 45, § 61, as amended, or T. 15, § 301.
The situation here is the same. The circuit clerk correctly explained the required procedure.
Price, P. J., agrees in the above statement and concurs with me that the following extracts from the foregoing opinion of Johnson,' J. :
“ * * * The right to have prisoners who are * * * in the State penitentiary appear and testify is in the soimd discretion of trial court. * * * ” — p. 809, supra. (Italics added.)
and
“We do not believe that the court abused such discretion since the State offered to stipulate as to Keene’s testimony, and since it appears that Keene’s proposed testimony was not relevant or material to the allegations in the petition, and was hearsay.” — p. 810, supra. (Italics added.)
neither alone nor in context completely or correctly state the law.
We hold that, in the absence of a timely filed sworn petition, the trial judge was not required to consider or decide whether or not Keene, a convict in the penitentiary, should testify because the 1949 amendment *254to 'Code 1940, T. 45, § 61, is a prima facie valid regulation of the constitutional right of compulsory process for a convict to be subpoenaed.
That the judge did mention by way of opinion what Keene might have testified was not germane to whether Burton had made a timely bona fide effort to have Keene in court. The judge merely gave additional consideration to an allegation. This was a matter of grace and not of right.
The Magee opinion states the views of this court more fully as to the factors bearing on the exercise of sound judicial discretion in an area controlled by Constitution 1901, § 6.
Accordingly, we concur in the affirmance but enter this special opinion as the reasoning of the majority on the point here discussed.

. 43 Ala.App. 218.