Samuel H. Welch

In Gregory Lamar Ballard v. State of Alabama, Ballard appealed the denial of his petition for resentencing under Alabama Code § 15-22-54.1, which allows retroactive review for certain offenders whose probation was revoked due to technical violations. Ballard had been convicted of first-degree theft and receiving stolen property, sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, and placed in a community-corrections program as part of a split sentence before its revocation led to incarceration. The circuit court initially denied the petition for lack of jurisdiction, and on remand clarified that the placement was under a split sentence rather than probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute applies only to revocations of probation and not to revocations of community-corrections sentences served as part of a split sentence, because those involve serving a confinement portion of the sentence under Department of Corrections custody rather than a suspended sentence. Thus, Ballard did not meet the statutory criteria, and the circuit court lacked authority to resentence him.

criminal lawprocedure

Steven Todd Johnson was charged with two counts of first-degree theft of a motor vehicle and one count of third-degree burglary after a Kawasaki mule utility vehicle and a Polaris four-wheeler were stolen from two nearby properties on December 9, 2009. A jury convicted Johnson on all three counts, and the trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to three concurrent 10-year terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Johnson argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, noting the absence of direct eyewitness testimony placing him at the scenes of the thefts or burglary. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions, reasoning that the evidence of Johnson's recent possession of the stolen items, his flight from the scene, and his attempt to hide from police was sufficient for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

Benson W. Peak was convicted in Tuscaloosa Municipal Court and, after a de novo jury trial, in circuit court for violating a city ordinance by failing to register his septic tank on property in the Lake Tuscaloosa drainage basin. Peak moved to dismiss, arguing the ordinance exceeded municipal authority over proprietary functions, was preempted by state law, violated due process and equal protection by lacking a rational basis, and compelled self-incriminating information in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The trial court denied the motion after briefing, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the ordinance validly protected the city's public water supply as a governmental function, was not preempted, bore a rational relation to public health based on evidence of contamination risks from septic systems, and did not require incriminating disclosures.

criminal lawenvironment

The case involved Kevan Mathews, who was convicted of first-degree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, second-degree possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia under Alabama law, and sentenced to 20 years in prison along with various fines and assessments. Following an Anders brief from appointed counsel indicating no meritorious issues on appeal, the court reviewed the record and found no reversible error regarding the convictions themselves. However, the court remanded the case for resentencing because the $1,000 fine imposed under the Drug Demand Reduction Assessment Act did not apply to a conviction for violating § 13A-12-218, as established by prior precedent. The convictions were affirmed, but the fine was ordered to be set aside.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Curtis Dale Brooks was convicted by a jury in Randolph County on three counts of first-degree robbery arising from a single 2008 incident at a flower shop, where he was accused of using a pistol to steal money from employees Mildred Freeman and Tony White as well as from the business itself. Brooks appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and double-jeopardy violations. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions on counts 1 (Freeman) and 2 (White's wallet) as separate offenses involving distinct victims, but held that count 3 (business theft from White) merged with count 2 under double-jeopardy principles because both involved the same victim and threats of force in a single course of conduct. The court also remanded for the trial court to vacate the count-3 conviction and to clarify whether the 85-year sentence applied to each remaining count and whether the terms were concurrent or consecutive.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is Bruce Wilkerson's appeal from the circuit court's denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 2004 capital murder conviction and life-without-parole sentence for a robbery-related killing. Wilkerson raised multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, primarily concerning his first attorney's advice to cooperate with police, the presence of a law clerk during questioning, and later counsel's handling of plea negotiations and trial. On return from remand for specific findings on one claim, the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the claims alongside arguments about procedural bars under Rule 32.2(a), ultimately reviewing the record from the direct appeal and evidentiary hearing to evaluate whether counsel's performance was deficient or prejudicial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the State of Alabama's appeal from the circuit court's dismissal of multiple-count indictments charging Mitchell Roffler and Michelle Roffler with theft of property. The Rofflers had successfully argued that the indictments were insufficient because they did not specify whether the stolen funds were taken as cash, check, or credit- or debit-card transactions, and the circuit court agreed that this lack of detail failed to provide adequate notice. This Court initially affirmed the dismissals, but the Alabama Supreme Court reversed, holding that an indictment need only state the monetary amount involved to satisfy notice requirements under § 15-8-25, Ala. Code 1975, without identifying the medium of exchange. Following the Supreme Court's decision, this Court reversed the circuit court's judgment dismissing the indictments and remanded the case for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Samuel Lashaun Lee's appeal from the circuit court's summary denial of his petition for resentencing under § 15-22-54.1, Ala. Code 1975, after his probation for a first-degree robbery conviction was revoked in 2004 for technical violations. Lee argued that the court should have considered the totality of the circumstances to determine if he qualified as a nonviolent offender, drawing on precedent from a related sentencing statute. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that Lee was ineligible because first-degree robbery is statutorily defined as a violent offense under § 12-25-32(13), Ala. Code 1975. The core reasoning was that the plain language of § 15-22-54.1 limits relief to those convicted of nonviolent offenses based solely on the underlying conviction, without allowing a broader totality-of-circumstances analysis, and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to resentence him once that threshold was not met.

criminal lawprocedure

In Moore v. State, the defendant was convicted of distributing a controlled substance within three miles of a school and housing project under Alabama law after a trial whose transcript was later lost due to a corrupted electronic file. After the trial court set aside a related trafficking conviction on remand but upheld the distribution conviction using a partial reconstruction of the record under Rule 10, Moore appealed arguing that the absence of a full trial transcript and his lack of the same counsel on appeal entitled him to a new trial. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the distribution conviction and remanded for retrial, holding that because appellate counsel differed from trial counsel, the parties could not agree on a statement of the evidence, and the missing transcript prevented any determination of prejudice, reversal was required under precedents like Godbolt v. State. The court emphasized that no further efforts by the appellant could produce a complete record and that substantial portions of the proceedings were unavailable for review.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Dorsie Northard's twelfth Rule 32 petition under the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging his 1984 guilty plea conviction for capital murder and resulting life sentence without parole. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision by an unpublished memorandum. In a special concurrence, Judge Kellum highlighted the repetitive nature of the filings, noted that the claims were either precluded or meritless, and recommended that the circuit court consider imposing sanctions to deter future frivolous postconviction petitions by Northard and similar inmates.

criminal lawprocedure

T.A.P. was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court after pleading true to a charge of possessing heroin in violation of Alabama law and was committed to the Department of Youth Services. He appealed the denial of his motion to suppress the heroin found in his shoe, arguing that the search lacked probable cause because it was based on uncorroborated information from an unidentified informant whose reliability was unknown. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the juvenile court's ruling. The court reasoned that the informant was an eyewitness present in the apartment during a domestic-disturbance response, where officers had already found multiple firearms and a large amount of cash, and that under the totality of the circumstances these facts provided probable cause to search the shoes of the males who had been inside.

criminal lawprocedure

Wesley Little, a police officer, was convicted of possessing a firearm with an altered serial number in violation of Alabama Code § 13A-11-64 after a gun without a serial number was found in his patrol car during an internal affairs investigation. The trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison. On appeal, Little argued that the jury instructions were flawed because they failed to require proof that he possessed or used the firearm with the specific intent to misrepresent its identity, as required by the statute under State v. Self, and incorrectly suggested that concealment alone could support a conviction. The appellate court agreed, holding that the instructions allowed conviction without the necessary mens rea element and improperly added concealment as a prohibited act not listed in the statute, and therefore reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedureguns

The case G.E.G. v. State involved an appeal of convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia and second-degree possession of marijuana under Alabama Code sections 13A-12-260(c) and 13A-12-214. The Court of Criminal Appeals had previously reversed those two convictions while affirming a separate conviction for sexual torture. The Alabama Supreme Court then reversed the appellate court's judgment as to the drug convictions. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals set aside its earlier reversal and affirmed the drug convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerns Fidel Martinez's appeal from the denial of his Rule 32 petition for postconviction relief in Alabama. Following remand from the Alabama Supreme Court in light of Ex parte Ward, which established that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to the statute of limitations in Rule 32 petitions, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment. The court reasoned that Martinez, like Ward, is entitled to an opportunity to assert equitable tolling because the new rule applies retroactively to pending cases. Therefore, the case was remanded to the circuit court to allow Martinez to present evidence on whether he qualifies for equitable tolling of the limitations period, and if so, to address the merits of his petition.

criminal lawprocedure

Larry Mitchell was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance after police officers found crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia at his residence during a search for another individual. Mitchell appealed, arguing that the State failed to present evidence establishing venue in Baldwin County, where the trial court sat. The court held that the State bears the burden of proving venue, which may be shown by circumstantial evidence but cannot be left to inference or assumption. Here, testimony that Fairhope officers made the arrest and took Mitchell to the Fairhope police station was deemed insufficient without affirmative evidence such as the address or explicit location of the residence. The judgment was reversed and a judgment of acquittal rendered.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a criminal appeal by Marsha Colby challenging a judgment from the Baldwin Circuit Court in a prosecution by the State of Alabama. On remand from the Alabama Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court's judgment. The reversal was issued solely on the authority of the Supreme Court's opinion in Ex parte Colby, with the matter remanded for further proceedings consistent with that decision. All judges on the panel concurred.

criminal law

James Albert Ragland appealed the summary denial of his Rule 32 petition challenging his 2007 convictions for murder and attempted murder and the trial court's resentencing from split sentences (with probation) to two full 20-year prison terms. The petition alleged lack of authority to resentence, double jeopardy violations, jurisdictional errors, improper restitution, and ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the resentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the denial on the sentencing claim, holding that the trial court could not revoke probation and impose the full sentences without a proper due process hearing under Rule 27, Ala. R.Crim.P., and ordered reinstatement of the original split sentences while allowing the State to initiate revocation proceedings. The ineffective assistance claim was deemed moot. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

Kevin Dewayne Lane was convicted of murdering Ronald Smith after a physical altercation in the apartment of Lane's former romantic partner Ebony Smith, during which Smith was moving in and the two men fought over a gun. Lane testified to acting in self-defense after Smith attacked him, and evidence showed Lane had sustained injuries and feared for his life, while the prosecution presented testimony that Lane had previously threatened to kill Smith. The trial court declined to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of provocation manslaughter and sentenced Lane to 75 years in prison. The appellate court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, ruling that the evidence of provocation warranted the jury instruction and that provocation manslaughter is not inconsistent with self-defense.

criminal law

The case involved Towanda Taite, who was convicted after a jury trial of misapplication of property and violating state ethics laws for using her position for personal gain, stemming from missing funds at the Wilcox County Water/Waste Department where she and a coworker were clerks. The trial court imposed suspended sentences with probation and fines. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings, finding that a juror had introduced extrinsic evidence during deliberations by stating Taite had a prior conviction and prison time, which prejudiced the verdict as shown by multiple juror affidavits indicating the information affected votes and that the jury was improperly pressured to reach identical verdicts for both defendants. The court held that this misconduct required reversal because the trial court failed to adequately address the prejudice from the improper information, distinguishing it from permissible common knowledge.

criminal lawprocedure

Jeffrey Lee, convicted of two counts of capital murder during a robbery and attempted murder, and sentenced to death despite a jury's life-without-parole recommendation, filed a Rule 32 petition challenging his convictions and sentence. The circuit court summarily denied the petition in a 138-page order. On appeal, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that many claims were procedurally barred, insufficiently pleaded under Rule 32.6(b), or lacked merit, including issues related to ineffective assistance of counsel, jury selection, mental competency evidence, and execution method. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and noted that plain-error review does not apply in postconviction proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure