Ex parte Shawn Ray Harper. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Shawn Ray Harper v. State of Alabama)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/18/2014 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2013-2014 ____________________ 1130479 ____________________ Ex parte Shawn Ray Harper PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Shawn Ray Harper v. State of Alabama) (Cullman Circuit Court, CC-10-74.61; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-12-1794) WISE, Justice. The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied. 1130479 In denying the petition for the writ of certiorari, this Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of Criminal Appeals' unpublished memorandum. Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782, 280 So. 2d 155 (1973). WRIT DENIED. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, Main, and Bryan, JJ., concur. Moore, C.J., dissents. 2 1130479 MOORE, Chief Justice (dissenting). Shawn Ray Harper pleaded guilty to first-degree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, a violation of § 13A12-218, Ala. Code 1975. On April 28, 2013, he filed the underlying Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition, alleging, among other things, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to render a judgment or to impose a sentence because Harper's preliminary hearing was waived by a court-appointed attorney whom Harper had fired and replaced with another attorney before the hearing. I would grant the petition for the writ of certiorari to determine whether the attorney who allegedly no longer represented Harper improperly waived Harper's preliminary hearing. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. 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.