Court Opinion

ID: 9932773
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:41:11.706236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:57:59.443656
License: Public Domain

While I believe the opinion reaches the right result, I note that King's petition for the writ of certiorari failed to comply with the grounds-stating requirements of Rule 39, Ala.R.App.P. Although King asserted "conflict" as the ground for seeking the writ of certiorari, he did not allege that ground with any particularity, as Rule 39(a)(1)(D) required him to do. (At the time King filed his petition, this requirement was contained in Rule 39(c)(4), Ala.R.App.P.) Given King's failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 39, if the petition had come before me5 I would have voted to deny it for failure to comply with the procedural rules governing petitions for certiorari review.
5 I was not a member of the division of this Court that granted the petition for the writ of certiorari. See Rule 16(a), Ala.R.App.P. *Page 1195