No. 18-8886

In Re James Rodgers, Jr.

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2019-04-18
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection jurisdiction statutory-interpretation void-for-vagueness. aggravating-circumstances criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection facial-unconstitutionality gang-relation-element jurisdiction legislative-intent statutory-interpretation subject-matter-jurisdiction void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2019-05-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether ACTR No. 92-601 is facially unconstitutional

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WHETHER ACTR NO. 92-601, AS ENROLLED, IS FACIALLY i UNCONSTITUTIONAL (CODIFIED AS SUBSECTIONS (15), (16),(17), AND (18), OF SECTION 13A-5-40(a), CODE OF ALABAMA, 1975) BECAUSE IT FAILS TO CONTAIN THE NECESSARY AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH IS THE GANG RELATION ELEMENT THAT IS REVEALED IN THE TRANSCRIBED JOURNALS OF BOTH THE ALABAMA SENATE AND THE ALABAMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1992 REGULAR SESSSION. RESULTING IN THE ENROLLED ACT NO. 92-601 ALWAYS OPERATING UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BECAUSE NO SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST UNDER WHICH THE ENROLLED ACT NO. 92-601 WOULD BE VALID, RESULTING IN THE TRIAL COURT HAVING NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION TO TRY OR CONVICT THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 13A-5-40(a) (17), OF CODE OF ALA. 1975 WHICH SUBSECTION WAS CODIFIED BY THE ENROLLED ACT NO. 92-601?

Docket Entries

2019-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-04-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.
2019-04-02
Petition for writ of habeas corpus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.

Attorneys

James Rodgers
James Rodgers Jr. — Petitioner
James Rodgers Jr. — Petitioner