Barton v. State (Per Curiam)
Annotate this CaseAppellant pleaded guilty to eight counts of aggravated robbery and other crimes. Appellant later filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001, contending that there was new scientific evidence that would prove he was actually innocent of seven of the counts of aggravated robbery to which he pled guilty and that he should have been convicted of only one of five aggravated robbery counts because the five robberies were a continuing course of conduct. The trial court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief under the Act.
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.