James G. Shaw

Pilgrim appealed the summary denial of his fourth Rule 32 petition attacking his 1982 guilty-plea conviction for attempted robbery in the first degree and resulting life sentence. The court held that his claims about the record failing to show application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act were non-jurisdictional and thus barred by Rule 32.2(a)(5), (b), and (c). On rehearing, Pilgrim raised a jurisdictional claim that attempted robbery was not a cognizable offense after the Alabama Criminal Code took effect in 1980; because the record suggested the offense occurred after that date, the court remanded for the circuit court to make findings on the offense date and, if after January 1, 1980, to vacate the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

In Oliver v. City of Opelika, Jajaun Martez Oliver was convicted of menacing under the Opelika Municipal Code after a jury trial in Lee Circuit Court, following an initial conviction in municipal court. The appeal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the menacing charge, which requires physical action intended to place another in fear of imminent serious physical injury. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the police officer's testimony—describing Oliver pointing a pistol at the officer's face during a traffic stop and hesitating before dropping it—provided sufficient evidence from which a jury could find the elements met beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Claude M. Conner appealing the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition attacking his 1984 guilty plea conviction for attempted robbery in the first degree and resulting life sentence. Conner claimed the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea because attempted robbery did not exist as an offense under Alabama law after the 1980 criminal code revisions. The circuit court denied the petition as procedurally barred under Rule 32.2, but the Court of Criminal Appeals determined the claim was jurisdictional in nature and sufficiently pleaded via the attached indictment, which indicated the offense occurred after January 1, 1980. The court therefore remanded for the circuit court to address the merits of whether the conviction was for a nonexistent offense and to make specific findings on the offense date.

criminal lawprocedure

In Robey v. State, the appellant challenged the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition attacking his 1991 guilty plea conviction for unlawful possession of a controlled substance, claiming the trial court lacked jurisdiction for failing to inform him of his appeal rights and right to appointed counsel. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that such failures do not constitute jurisdictional defects. The court reasoned that these claims can be subject to harmless error analysis, unlike true jurisdictional issues, and overruled prior precedent to the contrary, rendering the petition time-barred under Rule 32.2(c) as it was filed years after the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

Bobby White appealed the circuit court's summary denial of his motion under § 13A-5-9.1, Ala. Code 1975, seeking reconsideration of his life sentences imposed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act for first-degree escape and first-degree theft convictions. The circuit court had denied the motion solely on the ground that White had previously been paroled and that parole had later been revoked. The appellate court reversed, explaining that eligibility for sentence reconsideration requires only that the inmate was sentenced before May 25, 2000, received a qualifying life sentence under the HFOA, and is a nonviolent offender; prior parole history is not a disqualifying factor but may be considered as one element in determining nonviolent status or whether resentencing is appropriate. The case was remanded for the circuit court to reconsider the motion in light of that standard.

criminal law

In Crayton v. State, the defendant appealed the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 2001 guilty-plea convictions for attempted murder, first-degree robbery, and third-degree theft, along with the resulting sentences. Crayton argued that his convictions for both robbery and theft violated double-jeopardy principles because the theft was a lesser-included offense of the robbery based on the same underlying conduct of taking property from a store. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals examined the statutory elements under Ala. Code §§ 13A-1-8, 13A-1-9, 13A-8-41, 13A-8-43, 13A-8-2, and 13A-8-5, along with the specific facts alleged in the indictments, which showed that both charges arose from the identical theft of gasoline and other items. The court held that third-degree theft was indeed a lesser-included offense of first-degree robbery as charged, making the dual convictions impermissible and implicating the trial court's jurisdiction, and therefore reversed the denial of the petition solely as to the theft conviction while remanding for that conviction and sentence to be vacated.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Celester Cedric Edwards, who was convicted in Fairhope Municipal Court of DUI and resisting arrest under municipal ordinances adopting state statutes, then again convicted after a de novo jury trial in circuit court. Edwards appealed, arguing issues related to the stop and arrest that occurred partly outside Fairhope's jurisdiction. The court affirmed the DUI conviction and sentence, holding that the officer observed the speeding and DUI in Fairhope and had authority to pursue and arrest even though the stop occurred just over the line in Daphne. However, it dismissed the appeal as to the resisting-arrest conviction, reasoning that the municipal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the resisting-arrest charge because the relevant conduct occurred entirely in Daphne, rendering the circuit court's judgment on that count void.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jake Williams III's appeal of his Alabama drug conviction and the sentence imposed. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction by unpublished memorandum. In a partial dissent, Judge Baschab agreed with affirming the conviction but argued that the trial court's $2,000 fine under the Demand Reduction Assessment Act exceeded the statutory maximum. The dissent reasoned that the statute's plain language requires prior convictions to be for violations of specifically enumerated Alabama code sections to trigger the higher $2,000 penalty for repeat offenders, and Williams's prior Georgia conviction did not qualify. The dissent would have remanded for imposition of the $1,000 fine applicable to first offenders.

criminal lawprocedure

Eric Saffold was convicted of first-degree robbery after being discovered masked and carrying a concealed loaded rifle near a closed Dairy Queen restaurant at night, where he told the owners he was not going to rob them but later confessed to police that he intended to scare employees into giving him money. On appeal, Saffold argued that the State failed to prove a prima facie case of robbery because no explicit threat or theft attempt occurred and that his statement to police should have been suppressed. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of 25 years' imprisonment, ruling that the evidence of Saffold's armed and masked presence combined with his confession was sufficient to establish the elements of first-degree robbery and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the voluntary statement. The court found no error in denying the motions for acquittal and suppression based on the circumstances and credibility determinations at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

James Matthew Hyde appealed the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 1996 capital murder convictions and death sentence for killing a grand jury witness. After Hyde's sentence was reduced to life without parole on remand pursuant to Roper v. Simmons due to his age of 17 at the time of the offense, the appellate court addressed the timeliness of the petition under former Rule 32.2(c), procedural requirements for proceeding in forma pauperis, and the sufficiency of pleading for claims including ineffective assistance of counsel. The court applied de novo review to legal issues and an abuse of discretion standard to factual findings, concluding that numerous claims were abandoned on appeal, procedurally barred, or failed to meet pleading requirements under Rules 32.3 and 32.6(b).

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved William Buster Holt's appeal of the circuit court's denial of his motion under § 13A-5-9.1 to reconsider his life-without-parole sentence for a 1987 first-degree robbery conviction, which had been enhanced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act based on five prior felony convictions. Holt argued that the prior convictions were nonviolent and that the court should consider the totality of circumstances, including the facts of the robbery and his prison record, to find him a nonviolent convicted offender eligible for resentencing. The circuit court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing, holding that the statutory definition of robbery in the first degree as a violent offense precluded any discretion to consider other factors or grant eligibility under the statute, consistent with the interpretation in Kirby v. State. The appeals court opinion addressed and substituted its prior ruling while discussing the limits on judicial discretion in such sentence reconsiderations.

criminal law

Em Satterwhite was convicted of criminal trespass in the third degree in Auburn Municipal Court and again after a de novo jury trial in circuit court for refusing to leave a bookstore after management and police ordered her to remove her dog, which had reportedly urinated and smelled. Satterwhite's defense was that the dog was a service animal and the order was unlawful under the ADA because she had a qualifying disability. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence at trial did not establish that the dog met the ADA definition of a service animal or that Satterwhite's disability required its assistance in that setting, and that the trial court properly refused certain jury instructions on the ADA. The court noted that post-trial evidence of her Social Security disability determination could not be considered.

criminal lawcivil rights

Amanda Ellen O'Callaghan was convicted of unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance in the first degree under § 13A-12-218, Ala. Code 1975, after officers stopped her vehicle on Interstate 65 in Jefferson County and found evidence including jars with ether and other materials consistent with a methamphetamine production operation. On appeal she raised challenges to the statute's constitutionality for vagueness as to venue, the trial court's refusal to submit venue as a jury question, the sufficiency of evidence on the lab's proximity to a business and the number of precursor materials found, and the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence of other acts. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, that venue need not be submitted to the jury, that the evidence was sufficient under the statute's terms, and that the evidentiary ruling was proper. It remanded solely for resentencing to vacate an unauthorized $1,000 fine imposed under § 13A-12-281, which does not apply to this offense.

criminal lawprocedure

Timothy Lee Harris was convicted of trafficking in marijuana and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress marijuana found in a warrantless search of his vehicle, arguing lack of probable cause and that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not apply to a vehicle parked on private property. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that officers had probable cause based on a reliable informant's tip corroborated by surveillance, and that the automobile exception applies regardless of the vehicle's location on private property. The court reasoned that a vehicle's inherent mobility supports the exception without needing additional exigent circumstances, and it overruled prior state cases implying otherwise.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Ronnie Lee Brown's petition for a writ of mandamus to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, seeking to require the trial court to promptly dispose of his Rule 32 postconviction petition, which had been pending amid a backlog of similar cases in the Eighth Judicial Circuit. The court granted the petition and directed the trial judge to address Brown's filing within a reasonable time. In dissent, Judge Shaw reasoned that the delay stemmed from a manageable caseload rather than any intentional or negligent inaction by the State or judge, that no pattern of improper delay existed, and that mandamus was unwarranted under precedent cautioning against routine intervention in postconviction matters given the volume of such petitions.

criminal lawprocedure

Billy Joe Sellers, a registered sex offender with prior felony convictions, pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to violating Alabama Code § 15-20-26(c) by allowing a minor to stay at his residence, while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motions to dismiss and to declare the statute unconstitutional. The indictment and stipulated facts indicated that Sellers permitted a two-year-old child and her mother to stay at his home for several days in March 2004. Sellers argued that the statute was void for vagueness because "living accommodation" was undefined and that the facts did not establish a violation since the stay was temporary. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute provided sufficient notice to persons of common intelligence regarding the prohibited conduct and that the factual basis, including the four-day stay, was adequate under the statute's terms.

criminal law

In this case, Mark Lynn Brown was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine and first-degree unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine based on evidence seized from his home during a search warrant execution, including drugs, manufacturing equipment, and multiple firearms. Brown appealed, arguing that admission of a forensic certificate of analysis violated his confrontation rights under Crawford v. Washington, but the court held that he had not properly preserved the issue for review by failing to follow the statutory notice and hearing procedures in § 12-21-300 et seq. The court affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the procedural requirements were not met, and remanded the case for the trial court to apply the mandatory five-year firearm enhancement under § 13A-12-231(13) to the trafficking sentence, as the jury's verdict established possession of firearms.

criminal lawprocedureguns

Jerry Jerome Butler appealed the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 1980 guilty-plea convictions for first-degree burglary and first-degree rape. The court held that his due-process claim was procedurally barred and that his claim about pleading guilty before indictment was meritless on its face. However, it found his claim that the district attorney's informations were not made under oath to be a jurisdictional issue that was sufficiently pleaded, unrefuted by the State, and supported by precedents interpreting Alabama Code provisions requiring such oaths. The court therefore remanded for an evidentiary hearing or affidavits to allow Butler to prove the claim and for the circuit court to issue findings of fact.

criminal lawprocedure

Bobby Tarver appealed the circuit court's denial of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief challenging his 1987 capital murder conviction and death sentence for a robbery-related killing. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed multiple claims, including a motion for the trial judge's recusal based on prior involvement in death-penalty cases, and addressed the adequacy of the record and evidence on issues such as mental retardation and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court remanded the case for further proceedings after finding deficiencies in the handling of certain claims and the need for additional fact-finding on the defendant's intellectual functioning and trial counsel's performance. Core reasoning focused on procedural requirements for complete records on appeal and the proper evaluation of postconviction evidence under Alabama rules.

criminal lawprocedure

In Wheeler v. State, Randy Lee Wheeler appealed the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32 petition attacking his 2003 convictions for first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual abuse, along with his concurrent sentences as a habitual felony offender. Wheeler raised claims including lack of jurisdiction due to no arrest warrant or failure to swear the jury venire before voir dire, insufficient evidence, and ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that most claims were abandoned on appeal, procedurally barred under Rule 32.2, or insufficiently pleaded under the Strickland standard for ineffective counsel. The court remanded the case for the circuit court to make findings on whether the jury venire was properly sworn before voir dire and whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to that issue.

criminal lawprocedure