Ex parte Michael Anthony Sockwell. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Michael Anthony Sockwell v. State of Alabama) (Montgomery Circuit Court: CC-88-1244.60; Criminal Appeals : CR-08-1540). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL:08/30/2013 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2290649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2013 ____________________ 1120561 ____________________ Ex parte Michael Anthony Sockwell PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Michael Anthony Sockwell v. State of Alabama) (Montgomery Circuit Court, CC-88-1244.60; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-08-1540) MOORE, Chief Justice. 1120561 WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Main, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Murdock and Shaw, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part. Wise, J., recuses herself.* *Justice Wise was a member of the Court of Criminal Appeals when that court considered this case. 2 1120561 SHAW, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the petitioner, Michael Anthony Sockwell, failed to allege under Rule 32.1(e), Ala. R. Crim. P., that his claim of a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was based on newly discovered evidence. Sockwell v. State, (No. CR-08-1540, Aug. 24, 2012), So. 3d (Ala. Crim. App. 2012) (table). However, as this Court recently held in Ex parte Beckworth, [Ms. 1091780, July 3, 2013] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2013), a claim that a petitioner's constitutional rights were violated under Brady may be alleged under Rule 32.1(a), Ala. R. Crim. P., and not be required to meet the elements of a claim of newly discovered material facts under Rule 32.1(e). Sockwell claims that he properly alleged his Brady claim under Rule 32.1(a); I would grant the petition as to this ground to review whether his allegations were evidentiary hearing. sufficient to entitle him to an As to the remaining issues in the petition, I concur to deny certiorari review. Murdock, J., concurs. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
