 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
INGRAM v. STATE3/20/1998
In May 1993, the appellant, William T. Ingram, was convicted of manslaughter and assault in the third degree, in connection with an alcohol-related automobile accident that resulted in the death of Elizabeth Beaird and that injured her husband Arthur. The appellant was sentenced on July 6, 1993, to 20 years in the penitentiary for the manslaughter conviction and to 1 year in the county jail for the assault conviction. The sentences were to be served consecutively. The appellant did not file a notice of appeal.
At trial the state presented evidence that the automobile being driven by the appellant veered into the lane of oncoming traffic on a two-lane highway and collided head-on with the Beairds' vehicle. Elizabeth Beaird was killed instantly. Arthur Beaird was hospitalized with injuries to his arm and leg. The appellant was also injured in the collision and was transported by ambulance to a hospital, where hospital personnel took a blood sample. An analysis of that blood revealed that the appellant's blood-alcohol concentration was 0.228%.
In March 1994, the appellant filed a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition, alleging, among other things, that his failure to file a direct appeal was without fault on his part. See Rule 32.1(f), Ala. R. Crim. P. The trial court granted the appellant an out-of-time appeal on May 19, 1994. The appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 2, 1994, and the trial court appointed new counsel to represent him in further proceedings. The appellant's appointed attorney filed a motion, pursuant to Ex parte Jackson, 598 So.2d 895 (Ala. 1992), to toll the running of the time for filing a motion for a new trial. The trial court entered an order granting the "Jackson motion," and the appellant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial that alleged, among other things, that he had been denied the right to effective assistance of trial counsel. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial. The appellant's out-of-time appeal then proceeded to this court.
In an unpublished memorandum issued on August 18, 1995, this court affirmed the appellant's convictions, holding, among other things, that the jurisdictional time limit for filing a motion for a new trial had already expired when the appellant's newly appointed counsel filed the Jackson motion, that the appellant's motion for a new trial was thus untimely, and that his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in that motion was procedurally barred.
The Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Ingram, 675 So.2d 863, 864 (Ala. 1996), granted the appellant's petition for certiorari review "to consider the single issue whether the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was procedurally barred." The Supreme Court went on to overrule Ex parte Jackson, to the extent that it "allow a defendant's newly appointed appellate counsel to move to suspend the Rule 24.1(b) Ala. R. Crim. P., 30-day jurisdictional time limit for new trial motions." The Supreme Court further held that the appellant should be allowed to present his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a second Rule 32 petition, "because the peculiar facts of this case satisfy the Rule 32.2(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., requirement of `good cause' for being allowed to present successive Rule 32 petitions." 675 So.2d at 866.
On or about April 11, 1996, the appellant filed his second Rule 32 petition in the trial court, presenting therein various allegations of ineffective assistance of trial counsel and again alleging that the failure to file a direct appeal was without fault on his part. In an order dated September 20, 1996, the trial court ruled tha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|