From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte White

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 9, 2001
792 So. 2d 1097 (Ala. 2001)

Opinion

No. 1992075.

Decided March 9, 2001.

Appeal from Madison Circuit Court, CC-89-11; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-98-0722.

Matthew G. Dobson and Deborah Green Shortridge of Saul, Ewing, Weinberg Green, Baltimore, Maryland; and Richard A. Kempaner, Huntsville, for petitioner.

Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and A. Vernon Barnett IV, asst. atty. gen., for respondant.


The Court of Criminal Appeals, on April 21, 2000, without an opinion, affirmed the trial court's order denying Leroy White's Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition. White v. State (No. CR-98-0722), ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) (table). We deny the petition for the writ of certiorari. In denying the petition, we note that when the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, that court's review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo. State v. Hill, 690 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Ala. 1996).

WRIT DENIED.

Moore, C.J., and Houston, See, Lyons, Brown, Johnstone, Harwood, Woodall, and Stuart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte White

Supreme Court of Alabama
Mar 9, 2001
792 So. 2d 1097 (Ala. 2001)
Case details for

Ex Parte White

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte Leroy White. (In re: Leroy White v. State)

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Mar 9, 2001

Citations

792 So. 2d 1097 (Ala. 2001)

Citing Cases

State v. Mitchell

, [our] review in a Rule 32 proceeding is de novo." Ex parte White, 792 So.2d 1097, 1098 (Ala. 2001).…

State v. Mitchell

However, "when the facts are undisputed and an appellate court is presented with pure questions of law, [our]…