Weldon v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Weldon v. State, 718 So. 2d 54 (Ala. 1998)
1998 Ala. LEXIS 160; 1998 WL 323704
Shores, Hooper, Lyons, Almon, Kennedy, Cook, Houston, Maddox, See

Weldon v. State

Opinion of the Court

SHORES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

ALMON, KENNEDY, and COOK, JJ., concur. HOUSTON, J., concurs specially. HOOPER, C.J., and MADDOX, SEE, and LYONS, JJ., dissent.

Concurring Opinion

HOUSTON, Justice

(concurring specially).

Because the United States Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to forfeiture of property in drug cases, but has declined to establish a test for determining whether a forfeiture is excessive, I believe it is appropriate for this Court, in deciding which test it should adopt for the State of Alabama, to follow the logic applied by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In United States v. One Parcel Property Located at 427 and 429 Hall Street, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama, 74 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 1996), the Eleventh Circuit adopted the “proportionality test.” Therefore, I concurred when the majority of this Court employed the proportionality test in Dent v. State, 714 So.2d 988 (Ala. 1998), and I concur in denying this petition for the writ of certiorari.

Dissenting Opinion

MADDOX, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Gee my dissent in Dent v. State, 714 So.2d 988 (Ala. 1998).

HOOPER, C.J., and LYONS, J., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Jeffery Randall WELDON v. STATE)
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published