Court Opinion

ID: 7747892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 20:13:42.137802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:03.842046
License: Public Domain

In quashing the writ, we should not be understood as agreeing with what the Court of Criminal Appeals wrote regarding the proper standard to be applied in cases determining whether prejudice has occurred. See Roan v.State, 225 Ala. 428, 143 So. 454 (1932); Reed v. State, 547 So.2d 596
(Ala. 1989); Union Mortg. Co. v. Barlow, 595 So.2d 1335 (Ala.), cert.denied, 506 U.S. 906 (1992); Ex parte Stewart, 659 So.2d 122 (Ala. 1993); Campbell v. Williams, 638 So.2d 804 (Ala. 1994); Dawson v. State,710 So.2d 472 (Ala. 1997); and Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala. 2001).
In addition, the facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts presented in Ex parte Pierce, [Ms. 1981270, September 1, 2000] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. 2000). Compare Ex parte Dobyne, [Ms. 1992261, June 15, 2001]805 So.2d 763 (Ala. 2001).
WRIT QUASHED.
Houston, See, Lyons, Brown, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.
Johnstone, J., concurs specially.
Moore, C.J., concurs in the result. *Page 18