Court Opinion

ID: 9783464
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 19:46:20.906361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:23.898703
License: Public Domain

LYONS, Justice
(concurring in the rationale in part and concurring in the result).
I concur in the main opinion except to the extent it discusses the continued efficacy of Ex parte Stewart, 853 So.2d 901 (Ala.2002). The main opinion states that this Court’s holdings in Ex parte Stewart, that an initial appearance is not a critical stage in the criminal proceedings and that a defendant is not entitled to the assistance of counsel at the initial appearance, 43 So.3d at 550, remain the law in this *552State. As to that discussion I concur only in the result reached in this case, lest I be understood as retreating from the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Ex parte Stewart. See Ex parte Stewart, 853 So.2d at 905 (Lyons, J., dissenting) (“If Stewart’s initial appearance had gone no further [than merely being informed of his constitutional rights], I would agree with the main opinion that an attorney would be unnecessary to protect Stewart at his initial appearance where it does not appear that the prosecutor was present. However, in this case something more than advice as to constitutional rights transpired at the appearance. Stewart’s initial appearance before the district court was the first proceeding in which Stewart could challenge the amount of bail set in his case. The State, in its brief, failed to accord any significance to this fact, and the main opinion dismisses this fact in one paragraph.”).
COBB, C.J., concurs.