
    Ex parte State of Alabama (Re Ignacio DIAZ v. STATE of Alabama).
    No. 84-693.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    July 26, 1985.
    Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Martha Gail Ingram, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
    Charles R. Gaddy, Millbrook, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

WRIT DENIED.

FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON, and ADAMS, JJ., concur.

TORBERT, C.J., concurs specially.

TORBERT, Chief Justice

(concurring specially).

I agree that the writ should be denied. However, I wish to point out that I do not agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion that the factual statement of the disciplinary court is ■ inadequate. I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ conclusion, 474 So.2d 171, that petitioner was entitled to a hearing in circuit court on the merits of his allegations only because he was allegedly denied an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses at the disciplinary hearing.  