Carlo Angelo Green v. James Hayes, No. 06-16238 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT OCT 26, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 06-16238 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D. C. Docket No. 06-00817-CV-IPJ-TMP CARL ANGELO GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus JAMES HAYES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, THE Respondents-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama _________________________ (October 26, 2007) Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: On April 12, 2006, in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama, a jury convicted petitioner of aggravated stalking 1 and the court sentenced him to prison for a term of ten years. He timely appealed his conviction to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and while his appeal was pending, he petitioned the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for a writ of habeas corpus. His petition stated that, prior to standing trial for aggravated stalking, he had been convicted in misdemeanor cases in the Gadsden City Court of domestic violence and that those misdemeanor cases involved the same evidence and same witnesses the State used to obtain his conviction for aggravated stalking. Because the State had already used such evidence to obtain the misdemeanor convictions, he contended, the State was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause (as applied to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment) from prosecuting him on the aggravated stalking charge. The district court correctly noted that petitioner s habeas petition was premature and therefore dismissed it without prejudice. At the same time, the court granted petitioner a certificate of appealability (COA) on the issue of whether petitioner s double jeopardy claim was exhausted. We affirm the district court s judgment dismissing the petition without prejudice. At the time the district court entered its order, petitioner s appeal was 1 See Ala. Code ยง 13A-6-91 (1975). 2 still pending; thus, the district court could not have known the disposition the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals may have made of petitioner s double jeopardy claim. Accordingly, the COA should not have been entered. The district court s dismissal of the instant petition without prejudice is AFFIRMED. 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.
