TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moss v. State

Edward Lee Moss v. State.

Moss v. State, 282 So. 2d 82 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · State Appellate Courts
Decided
August 28, 1973
Docket
No. 7 Div. 216
Judges
Almon
Citations
282 So. 2d 8250 Ala. App. 6431973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1334

Opinion — Almon

ALMON, Judge.

Appellant was indicted February 29, 1972, for robbery. On March 24, 1972, he filed with the Circuit Court a petition requesting a speedy trial. This petition was accompanied by a conditional waiver of extradition. Appellant’s cause was set for trial on October 11, 1972. Prior to the commencement of trial proceedings, appellant was heard in chambers (on October 11, 1972) on his motion to quash the indictment. Appellant’s only evidence was a stipulation asserting the date of the indictment, the date of his petition for a speedy trial, the fact that he was incarcerated in the State of Georgia at the time the indictment was returned, and the fact that criminal cases were tried in Cherokee County Circuit Court during the week of April 3, 1972.

After the trial court denied appellant’s motion to quash the indictment, he elected to plead guilty. The record discloses that the plea of guilty was taken in conformity with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 .

We are not in agreement with appellant’s contention that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to quash the indictment. The delay was only slightly in excess of seven months. Moreover, since appellant’s motion was predicated 'upon a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, the burden necessarily rested *644 upon him to show that the delay in trial resulted in actual prejudice. Sellers v. State, 48 Ala.App. 178 , 263 So.2d 156 . See also, Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 . The record before us indicates no attempt by the appellant to sustain this burden.

The judgment below is hereby Affirmed.

All the Judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1976: 11978: 11981: 11984: 119762026peak 1976 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Yarber v. State368 So. 2d 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
  2. Linson v. State394 So. 2d 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)
  3. Woods v. State333 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
  4. Warrior Drilling & Engineering Co. v. King446 So. 2d 31 (Ala. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Warrior Drilling & Engineering Co. v. King446 So. 2d 31 (Ala. 1984)
  2. Linson v. State394 So. 2d 85 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981)
  3. Yarber v. State368 So. 2d 868 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
  4. Woods v. State333 So. 2d 178 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) 11,275
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) 10,778
Sellers v. State, 263 So. 2d 156 (Ala. Crim. App. 1972) 42

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list