Gartman v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Gartman v. State, 888 So. 2d 491 (Ala. 2004)
2004 Ala. LEXIS 52; 2004 WL 473381
See, Brown, Stuart, Johnstone, Harwood

Gartman v. State

Concurring Opinion

JOHNSTONE, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur in denying this petition for a writ of certiorari because we are without any choice. The petition, filed by counsel, is a petition for a writ of certiorari in title only. It identifies no error by the Court of Criminal Appeals, states no ground for certiorari review, states no facts, and lacks a supporting brief. Indeed, the petition does not even ask us to issue the writ or to review the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition ignores virtually every critical requirement of the governing rule, Rule 39, Ala. R.App. P., and ignores the most elementary of the fundamentals of advocacy — that the advocate say what he or she wants and why he or she wants it.

HARWOOD, J., concurs.

Opinion of the Court

SEE, Justice.

WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION.

BROWN and STUART, JJā€ž concur. JOHNSTONE and HARWOOD, JJ., concur specially.

Reference

Full Case Name
Ex Parte John Allen Gartman. (In Re John Allen Gartman v. State of Alabama).
Status
Published