TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jenkins v. State

Clifton Lee Jenkins v. State.

Jenkins v. State, 516 So. 2d 935 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 13, 1987
Judges
Patterson
Citations
516 So. 2d 935

Opinion — Patterson

Jenkins appeals the summary denial of his pro se petition for writ of error coram nobis wherein he alleges ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to "investigate, explore and conduct" his case. Jenkins offers no facts to support this allegation; thus, this allegation is not cognizable. Stephens v. State , 420 So.2d 826 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). He further alleges that trial counsel failed to appeal his conviction after being requested to do so. The state filed no pleadings and, hence, does not refute this allegation. A deliberate failure by defense counsel to perfect an appeal after a timely request by the defendant would constitute ineffective assistance *Page 936 of counsel. Therefore, in regard to Jenkins's second allegation, the petition appears to be meritorious on its face, and Jenkins should have been afforded a hearing. See Populus v. State , 51 Ala. App. 166 , 283 So.2d 617 (Ala.Cr.App. 1973). However, from our records in the office of the clerk of this court, of which we take judicial notice, we find that this allegation is untrue. Our records show that Jenkins's conviction was appealed, Jenkins's counsel filed briefs, a transcript was prepared and filed, and we affirmed the conviction without rendering an opinion, on September 16, 1986. Our records further disclose that Jenkins's counsel filed an application for rehearing in the case, which was denied on November 12, 1986.

Although we find that Jenkins's petition was facially meritorious, we affirm the trial court's denial of the petition on our finding that his allegation upon which he bases his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is untrue. "If the ruling of the trial court is correct for any reason, it will not be reversed." Mead v. State , 449 So.2d 1279 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984).

It is difficult for us to believe that when Jenkins filed the instant petition, he was unaware that his conviction had been appealed.

Accordingly, this case is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1998: 11999: 22000: 12006: 119982026peak 1999 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Dobyne v. State805 So. 2d 733 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)
  2. Davis v. State720 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)
  3. Davis v. State9 So. 3d 514 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)
  4. Pierce v. State851 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
  5. Brown v. State807 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)

Most recent

  1. Davis v. State9 So. 3d 514 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006)
  2. Dobyne v. State805 So. 2d 733 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000)
  3. Brown v. State807 So. 2d 1 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
  4. Pierce v. State851 So. 2d 558 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)
  5. Davis v. State720 So. 2d 1006 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998)

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
Populus v. State, 283 So. 2d 617 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973) 8
Stephens v. State, 420 So. 2d 826 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) 25
Mead v. State, 449 So. 2d 1279 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984) 10

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