A. L. L. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/13/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-06-1500 A.L.L. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from D a l e C i r c u i t (CC-06-240) On Remand f r o m KELLUM, Judge. The homicide, Court t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court 1 appellant, A.L.L., was indicted a violation o f § 3 2 - 5 A - 1 9 2 , A l a . Code f o r vehicular 1975, and f o r T h i s c a s e was o r i g i n a l l y a s s i g n e d t o a n o t h e r j u d g e o n t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s ; i t was r e a s s i g n e d t o J u d g e K e l l u m on J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 . 1 CR-06-1500 assault Code i n the second 1975. A.L.L. degree, a violation subsequently applied of § 13A-6-21, A l a . f o r and was y o u t h f u l - o f f e n d e r s t a t u s . F o l l o w i n g a bench t r i a l , court adjudicated underlying assault. charges The three-year terms in a youthful vehicular court the o f f e n d e r based homicide sentenced and A.L.L. service. A.L.L. count one of the on the second-degree to community-corrections concurrent program and in jail and appealed. a p p e a l , A.L.L. argued t h a t t h e c i r c u i t dismissing the c i r c u i t t o s e r v e s i x c o n s e c u t i v e weekends p e r f o r m community On not of circuit o r d e r e d A.L.L. to A.L.L. granted court erred indictment charging by A.L.L. w i t h v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e b e c a u s e , he a r g u e d , t h e i n d i c t m e n t was fatally motion in f l a w e d and that the court f o r judgment of a c q u i t t a l erred when i t denied h i s as t o t h e charge of assault the second degree. T h i s Court r e v e r s e d the judgment of the c i r c u i t c o u r t a d j u d i c a t i n g A.L.L. a y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r based the underlying charge of vehicular homicide and remanded c a s e f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . See A . L . L . v. S t a t e , 1500, September 26, 2008] So. 2008). 2 3d on the [Ms. C R - 0 6 - ( A l a . Crim. App. CR-06-1500 The State certiorari petitioned review, which 2009, t h e Supreme C o u r t judgment with addressing t h e Alabama that court Supreme granted. On Court August 21, reversed that portion of this whether the indictment v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e was f a t a l l y flawed, for charging Court's A.L.L. holding: "A.L.L.'s indictment s u b s t a n t i a l l y f o l l o w e d the l a n g u a g e o f § 3 2 - 5 A - 1 9 2 ( a ) . I t was ' a p l a i n , c o n c i s e statement of the charge i n ordinary language sufficiently definite to inform a defendant of common u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the offense charged ' Rule 13.2(a), Ala. R. Crim. P. The vehicular-homicide indictment clearly '"'apprise[d] [A.L.L.] w i t h a reasonable c e r t a i n t y o f t h e nature o f t h e a c c u s a t i o n a g a i n s t h i m s o t h a t he [ c o u l d ] prepare h i s defense and p l e a d t h e judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n as a b a r t o any subsequent p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . ' " ' S h o u l d i s v . S t a t e , 9 5 3 S o . 2d 1 2 7 5 , 1283 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ( q u o t i n g Moore v. S t a t e , 697 S o . 2 d 8 0 0 , 802 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1996), q u o t i n g i n t u r n o t h e r c a s e s ) . Had A.L.L. f e l t that additional details concerning the alleged o f f e n s e w e r e n e e d e d , h e c o u l d h a v e made a m o t i o n f o r a m o r e d e f i n i t e s t a t e m e n t . S e e R u l e 1 3 . 2 ( e ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P." A.L.L. , v. S t a t e , (Ala. In circuit light [Ms. 1 0 8 0 3 9 5 , August 2 1 , 2009] So. 3d 2009). o f t h e Supreme Court's holding, we affirm the c o u r t ' s a d j u d i c a t i o n o f A.L.L. as a y o u t h f u l b a s e d on t h e u n d e r l y i n g c h a r g e o f v e h i c u l a r h o m i c i d e . adjudication as a y o u t h f u l offender 3 based offender A.L.L.'s on t h e u n d e r l y i n g CR-06-1500 charge case of assault remanded September shall f o r the 26, 2008, adjudicate underlying Edwards aff'd, Daphne, i n t h e second v. offense State, reasons opinion. A.L.L. degree a i s reversed s e t out On remand, youthful i n this offender 452 Crim. 452 S o . 2 d 5 0 8 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) . (Ala. I N PART; REVERSED court on t h e See, App. e.g., 1983), See a l s o J.F.C. v . C i t y o f 844 S o . 2 d 608 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) . AFFIRMED based degree. 506 Court's the c i r c u i t of assault i n the third So. 2d and the I N PART; AND 2 REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Wise, P.J., a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d M a i n , J J . , concur. We n o t e t h a t o n A p r i l 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o a d j u d i c a t e A . L . L . a y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r b a s e d on t h e u n d e r l y i n g o f f e n s e o f a s s a u l t i n t h e t h i r d d e g r e e and t o r e s e n t e n c e A.L.L. i n accordance w i t h t h i s Court's S e p t e m b e r 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , d e c i s i o n . S e e A . L . L . v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 6 1500, September 26, 2008] So. 3d ( A l a . Crim. App. 2008). However, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e s e n t e n c e A.L.L. a t t h a t t i m e b e c a u s e t h e Supreme C o u r t h a d granted certiorari review and, therefore, maintained jurisdiction over the case. "'The g e n e r a l rule i s that j u r i s d i c t i o n o f o n e c a s e c a n n o t b e i n t w o c o u r t s a t t h e same t i m e . ' " R o g e r s v . S t a t e , 782 S o . 2 d 8 4 7 , 848 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000)(quoting Ex p a r t e H a r g e t t , 772 S o . 2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 3 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1999)). Because the c i r c u i t court lacked jurisdiction t o r e s e n t e n c e A.L.L. on A p r i l 20, 2009, i t s j u d g m e n t p u r p o r t i n g t o do s o i s n u l l a n d v o i d . See G o r d o n v . S t a t e , 710 S o . 2 d 9 4 3 , 9 4 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1998)(quoting M c K i n n e y v . S t a t e , 5 4 9 S o . 2 d 1 6 6 , 168 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1989)) . 2 4

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.