TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wilson v. State

Leroy Wilson v. State.

Wilson v. State, 326 So. 2d 314 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 18, 1975
Docket
No. 4 Div. 202
Judges
Cates
Citations
326 So. 2d 31457 Ala. App. 1241975 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1250

Opinion — Cates

ON REHEARING CATES, Presiding Judge.

The former opinion in this case is hereby withdrawn and the following becomes the opinion of this Court:

Robbery: sentence, thirty years imprisonment.

Appellant, who was nineteen years of age at the time of trial, first made known his desire to be tried as a youthful offender in his motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court.

It was the duty of the trial court on being informed that Appellant was under the age of twenty-one at the time of the offense, and thus eligible for youthful offender treatment, to refer him to a probation officer for investigation.

Morgan v. State, 291 Ala. 764 , 287 So.2d 914 . The record in the instant case does not reveal that this was done. Following such investigation, if Appellant consents to be tried as a youthful offender under the provisions of Act No. 335 of February 10, 1972, it is within the discretion of the trial court to so try him. A minor accused’s right to be informed of the provisions of the Youthful Offender Act is accorded the same gravity as the right to an explanation of constitutional rights when a guilty plea is entered.

Morgan, supra.

On authority of Edwards v. State, ( 5 Div. 216 , Ms. Oct. 1, 1974), 55 Ala.App. 544 , 317 So.2d 511 (which rests on Morgan, supra) this case is remanded to the trial court to refer Appellant to a probation officer for investigation. Should Appellant then manifest a desire to be tried as a youthful offender, a speedy, fully recorded hearing on his petition shall be held and a transcript of the proceedings, together with the trial court’s determination, is to be forwarded to this court for review.

Remanded with directions.

Application for rehearing overruled.

All the Judges concur.

How later courts describe this case

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

1975: 21976: 31978: 11987: 119752026peak 1976 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Charles Coleman v. State of Alabama827 F.2d 1469 (11th Cir. 1987)
  2. Thomas v. State328 So. 2d 321 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
  3. Wilson v. State326 So. 2d 315 (Ala. 1975)
  4. Whitfield v. State324 So. 2d 793 (Ala. Crim. App. 1975)
  5. Thomas v. State358 So. 2d 1076 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
  6. Pitts v. State342 So. 2d 40 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)

Most recent

  1. Charles Coleman v. State of Alabama827 F.2d 1469 (11th Cir. 1987)
  2. Thomas v. State358 So. 2d 1076 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978)
  3. Pitts v. State342 So. 2d 40 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
  4. Thompson v. State354 So. 2d 1128 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
  5. Thomas v. State328 So. 2d 321 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976)
  6. Wilson v. State326 So. 2d 315 (Ala. 1975)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Morgan v. State, 287 So. 2d 914 (Ala. 1973) 38
Edwards v. State, 317 So. 2d 511 (Ala. Crim. App. 1974) 12

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