Court Opinion

ID: 9695259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:13:57.98464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:10.507692
License: Public Domain

COLEMAN, Justice
(Concurring in result) :
The theory of respondent’s defense set out in his brief is, in substance, that there was no evidence admitted at his trial to support a finding by the jury of the existence of one or more elements of the crime charged; that, for the lack of evidence to support a finding of guilt, the judgment of *430conviction upon which the petition for disbarment is based is void as violating respondent’s rights under Amendments XIV and XIII of the Constitution of the United States, and Section 32 of the Constitution of 1901; and that, because the judgment of conviction is void, there is no basis for granting the petition to disbar respondent.
In support of his theory, respondent cites Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654, and other authorities.
Respondent concedes that the judgment of conviction is pending on appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
Respondent appears to recognize that his contentions present a collateral attack on the judgment of conviction, and says that a void judgment may be attacked collaterally. I concur in the holding that this court ought not to entertain a collateral attack on a judgment while an appeal from the judgment is pending, and I concur in granting the petition of the Alabama State Bar in the instant case on the authority of Ex parte Alabama State Bar, 285 Ala. 191, 230 So.2d 519.
Respondent does not contend in his brief that the case last cited is not to be followed, and, as I understand the oral argument, respondent does not contend that Ex parte Alabama State Bar, supra, should be overruled or modified. In this posture of the case, I concur in granting the instant petition of tht State Bar, although my views expressed in dissent in Ex parte Alabama State Bar, supra, remain unchanged.
BLOODWORTH, J., concurs.