Lakisha Evett Jones v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/18/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 , Alabama 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 be 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-08-1556 L a k i s h a E v e t t Jones v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from Henry C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-08-248; CC-08-249) MAIN, Judge. Lakisha indictments Evett with Jones seven was charged counts possession o f a forged violations o f § 13A-9-6, A l a . Code of instruments, by seven separate second-degree criminal i.e., counterfeit checks, 1 9 7 5 . J o n e s was c o n v i c t e d CR-08-1556 o f two counts of second-degree c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n instrument. The jury acquitted Jones of of a five forged charges of second-degree c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t . trial court o f t h e two the sentenced her c o n v i c t i o n s and amount o f $6,860 and Jones does criminal the not for a of as a a Consumer convictions forged that letter she was the she to evaluate lived. Once s h e the a m o u n t o f money f r o m to a specified in costs. second-degree She challenges the and 2007, the Internet that from company customer t o do this to her, she Quality instructed service provided check, she in Ontario, she would was to wire a the store service c h a r g e r e q u i r e d b y M o n e y Gram, c o m p l e t e a f o r m e v a l u a t i n g 2 to specified i n a Wal-mart Canada, pay the receive t h a t she w o u l d n e e d a M o n e y Gram b r a n c h recipient and l o c a t e d i n Wal-Mart s t o r e s i n In o r d e r cashed the 14, letter, a c a s h i e r ' s c h e c k , made p a y a b l e cash. for evaluator, September M o n e y Gram b r a n c h e s where each ordered. dated In on restitution fines, instrument. customer-service Research. area Jones t o pay assessments, the a imprisonment r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s t h a t Jones a p p l i e d over job through years' ordered restitution received Jones two other appeal possession amount o f The to The the CR-08-1556 customer funds service she had r e c e i v e d , and keep a p o r t i o n as h e r f e e . A cashier's c h e c k made p a y a b l e t o J o n e s i n t h e amount o f $980 was e n c l o s e d i n t h e S e p t e m b e r 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , l e t t e r . to the i n s t r u c t i o n i n the l e t t e r , September 20, 2007, a t Headland a savings account. a Wal-Mart Ontario, store, Gram b r a n c h , Over cashier's cashed a cashed National $840 the check Bank, where on she had to a designated recipient i n service and r e t a i n e d the next charge o f $20, f i l l e d out a service at that p a r t i c u l a r Money $120 as h e r f e e . several days, Jones received two more c h e c k s f o r $980 e a c h , made p a y a b l e t o h e r , w h i c h s h e National B a n k on S e p t e m b e r t h e same p r o c e d u r e original September wired the customer at Headland followed Jones Pursuant S h e t h e n w e n t t o t h e M o n e y Gram b r a n c h a t Canada, p a i d form e v a l u a t i n g the of the letter. 28, 2007, On pursuant September she r e c e i v e d 24, 2007. She to the instructions of 26, 2007, a total and a g a i n of four on cashier's c h e c k s f o r $980 e a c h , made p a y a b l e t o h e r , w h i c h s h e c a s h e d a t Headland National Bank. A l l seven were d i s h o n o r e d and r e t u r n e d , t h e y were with counterfeit. 3 of the cashier's a notation checks i n d i c a t i n g that CR-08-1556 The checks jury a c q u i t t e d J o n e s o f t h e c h a r g e s on t h e f i r s t totaling $4,900. charges related At sentencing Jones's sentence, that Headland should out of pay two of acquitted charges her. five Over Bank Jones i n the court set paying at least motion to reconsider amount. trial Jones's At court the of of argued court $6,860 that to Jones arising she was convicted, in the should not be to pay as of to which Jones's restitution $6,860, ordered plus jury counsel, restitution. on Jones the combined motion and probation motion to the Headland interest. conditioned on the to the hearing 4 imposed f o r damage for a Jones's $1,960. trial of the only hearing the the and denied of court amount counsel objection t o pay that i n the charges probation one-half the she amount guilty trial requested f o r which the Jones the restitution that ordered after Jones's and for found checks cashed t o t a l i n g restitution Bank. $1,960, court National State r e q u i r e d t o pay restitution trial the Jones the amount hearing, National be jury t o t h e l a s t two the order The five The Jones's filed a restitution hearing, reconsider the the CR-08-1556 restitution order, make r e s t i t u t i o n On appeal, granted probation, p a y m e n t s i n t h e amount Jones argues that o r d e r i n g her to pay r e s t i t u t i o n jury acquitted checks. any Jones's that her as Alternatively, criminal seven in she never The State checks amount to a j u d i c i a l court cases. agree with awarding r e s t i t u t i o n reverse "'The p a r t i c u l a r five judge.'" Jones on t h e f i v e contends she that and cashed the she checks that to o f $4,900, t h e and, thus, restitution the t r i a l court that in a l l erred c h e c k s a s t o w h i c h s h e was and remand. amount o f r e s t i t u t i o n must o f n e c e s s i t y be l e f t trial admitted admission that d i d not e r r i n ordering We We after l e d t o the bank's l o s s on t h e f i r s t those the c o u n t e r f e i t checks the checks acquitted. the that about trial in from arising doubts amount t h e b a n k p a i d erred charges the she c a s h e d that court 1 checks because the had engaged i n conduct to on t h e f i v e or conduct. that Jones o f $200 p e r m o n t h . several first the to ordered the t r i a l she a r g u e s activity testimony she and almost t o t a l l y Ex p a r t e Stutts, i s a matter which to the d i s c r e t i o n of 897 S o . 2 d 4 3 1 , 433 ( A l a . The t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e c o m b i n e d h e a r i n g on J o n e s ' s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a n d p r o b a t i o n i s n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e r e c o r d on appeal. 1 5 CR-08-1556 2004), App. q u o t i n g C l a r e v. S t a t e , 1983), abuse of a f f ' d , 456 So. award. According criminal a So. or direct "defendant's injury foreseen or ... f o r any indirect act was [and] .... are a anticipated 1132, 1133 cases where State, 895 So. 2d 1050, State, 706 So. 2d 265, State, 608 State, 557 State, So. 501 433. 2d 2d So. 2d to of fully thereof," proximate when the of the cause person could the might occur injury have as R i c h a r d s o n v. S t a t e , App. 1 992 ) . or See also a 603 Rule ( " R e s t i t u t i o n s h o u l d be o r d e r e d i n a l l been 1054 267 773, 1318, perpetrators reasonable that a v i c t i m has So. court's "'required result the (Ala. Crim. 26.11(a), Ala.R.Crim.P. v. at trial a a clear p e c u n i a r y l o s s , damage, n a t u r a l consequence of the a c t i o n . ' " 2d 2d (Ala. Crim. Absent overturn So. conduct or criminal victim's So. 356 ( A l a . 1984). not 897 2d 3 5 5 , t o § 1 5 - 1 8 - 6 5 , A l a . Code 1975, activity as will Stutts, compensate a l l v i c t i m s injury 2 d 357 d i s c r e t i o n , we restitution 456 i n j u r e d or damaged."); Best ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); 1996); v. Moore v. Butler v. 775 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992 ) ; Day 1319 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989); Strough 488, 491 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986). "Under A l a b a m a ' s r e s t i t u t i o n s t a t u t e , t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d be o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n t o t h e v i c t i m o f 6 v. CR-08-1556 h i s c r i m e o n l y i f one o f two c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d : (1) h i s v i c t i m s u f f e r e d d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t pecuniary l o s s as a r e s u l t o f t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y o f w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t has b e e n c o n v i c t e d , o r (2) he a d m i t t e d to other c r i m i n a l conduct d u r i n g the p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t was the proximate cause of the victim's p e c u n i a r y l o s s o r damages." B.M.J. v. S t a t e , 952 See also 2001). So. Lamar v. Further, 2d 302, So. 2d 1174, State, 803 1176 So. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 576 (Ala. Crim. as t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n G r a c e v. 308 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). 2004), App. State, in 899 addressing Alabama's R e s t i t u t i o n A c t : " ' " ' [ I ] t i s well established that criminal statutes s h o u l d n o t be " e x t e n d e d by c o n s t r u c t i o n . " ' Ex p a r t e E v e r s , 434 So. 2d 813, 817 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . ' " [ C ] r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s must be strictly construed, to avoid ensnaring behavior t h a t i s not c l e a r l y p r o s c r i b e d . " ' U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B r i d g e s , 493 F.2d 918, 922 (5th C i r . 1974)." C a r r o l l [v. S t a t e ] , 599 So.2d [1253] a t 1264 [ ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992)].'" Section activity" as 15-18-66(1), A l a . "[a]ny offense d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d o r any by the defendant." a "judicial before See admission sufficient Professor Alabama Wigmore's defines respect to "criminal which other c r i m i n a l conduct "admission" supra. 1975, with An r e s t i t u t i o n can be Best, Code u n d e r § 15-18-66 to ordered." courts definition 7 support Day, have of 557 a So. followed judicial the admitted requires conviction 2d a t and 1319. applied admissions in CR-08-1556 addressing proof of p r i o r convictions at sentencing, as follows: "Wigmore d e f i n e s a j u d i c i a l admission as: "'an express waiver made i n c o u r t o r p r e p a r a t o r y t o t r i a l by t h e p a r t y o r h i s attorney conceding f o r the purposes of the t r i a l t h e t r u t h o f some a l l e g e d f a c t T h i s i s what i s commonly t e r m e d a s o l e m n - ¬ i.e., ceremonial or formal--or judicial admission or s t i p u l a t i o n . I t i s , i n t r u t h , a s u b s t i t u t e f o r e v i d e n c e , i n t h a t i t does away w i t h t h e n e e d f o r e v i d e n c e . ' 9 Wigmore, E v i d e n c e (Chadbourn r e v . 1 9 8 1 ) . " § 2588 at 821-22 Webb v. S t a t e , 539 So. 2d 3 4 3 , 352 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . I n Lamar, s u p r a , restitution for this Court reversed a w a r d o f $25,000 t o R o s a l y n injuries they Lamar h a d e n t e r e d had s u s t a i n e d a violation 1975, a n d he on 'proximately So. and h e r son accident. him injuries appeal to that pay the o f § 32-10-1, A l a . "the c i r c u i t restitution victims In our opinion 8 court were he not Lamar, 803 reversing the t r i a l award, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : Code because, sustained caused' by h i s l e a v i n g t h e scene." 2d a t 577. restitution argued ordered the court's a g u i l t y plea to the offense of leaving the o f an a c c i d e n t , argue[d], Sellers i n an a u t o m o b i l e scene improperly the t r i a l court's CR-08-1556 "Lamar's p l e a o f g u i l t y t o t h e o f f e n s e d e f i n e d i n §§ 32-10-1 a n d 32-10-2 [ , A l a . Code 1975,] d i d n o t r e s u l t i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r causing the accident that r e s u l t e d i n t h e i n j u r i e s t o S e l l e r s and h e r s o n , and, t h e r e f o r e , h i s g u i l t y p l e a c o u l d n o t a u t h o r i z e the t r i a l c o u r t t o sentence him t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e a c c i d e n t . "The t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d a l s o h a v e o r d e r e d Lamar t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n f o r 'any o t h e r c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t ' he a d m i t t e d d u r i n g t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t was t h e p r o x i m a t e cause o f the v i c t i m s ' i n j u r i e s . See § 15-18-66 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . However, a t no p o i n t during the p l e a colloquy, the sentencing hearing, or t h e r e s t i t u t i o n h e a r i n g d i d Lamar e v e r a d m i t t o having caused the a c c i d e n t r e s u l t i n g i n the v i c t i m s ' injuries. A l t h o u g h e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d during b o t h t h e s e n t e n c i n g and r e s t i t u t i o n h e a r i n g s that Lamar h a d c a u s e d the accident b e c a u s e he was speeding a n d he s t r u c k a t u r n i n g v e h i c l e , Lamar h i m s e l f n e v e r made s u c h an a d m i s s i o n . Under t h e p l a i n l a n g u a g e o f § 15-18-66, r e s t i t u t i o n c a n be ordered o n l y f o r 'other c r i m i n a l conduct' t h a t i s a d m i t t e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t . T h i s c o u r t has p r e v i o u s l y h e l d t h a t an a d m i s s i o n , as d e f i n e d i n § 15-18-66, r e q u i r e s 'a j u d i c i a l a d m i s s i o n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a c o n v i c t i o n b e f o r e r e s t i t u t i o n c a n be ordered.' Day v. S t a t e , [557 So. 2d 1318, 1319 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ] . Therefore, t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a d no statutory a u t h o r i z a t i o n to order Lamar t o pay r e s t i t u t i o n t o S e l l e r s and h e r son f o r t h e i n j u r i e s t h e y s u s t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e a c c i d e n t , b e c a u s e Lamar n e v e r a d m i t t e d any c o n d u c t t h a t c o u l d be s a i d t o be the p r o x i m a t e cause o f t h e i r i n j u r i e s . " Lamar, Best, 803 supra So. 2d a t 578-79 (footnote (holding r e s t i t u t i o n order omitted). See i m p r o p e r where also there was e v i d e n c e t h a t v i c t i m s u f f e r e d p e c u n i a r y l o s s i n d i r e c t l y i n 9 CR-08-1556 connection that with defendant's defendant had criminal stolen the activity, personal possession of i t ) ; Brothers Crim. 1988) (concluding t h a t , where to first-degree theft property of property App. guilty burglary a n d was ordered v. S t a t e , t o pay absent proof or had 531 So. 2d 317 ( A l a . defendant and restitution pleaded third-degree f o r damage t o p r o p e r t y d e s t r o y e d i n a f i r e r e s u l t i n g from arson, the b u r n i n g o f t h e h o u s e was n e i t h e r d i r e c t n o r i n d i r e c t r e s u l t o f t h e f t or b u r g l a r y ) . (upholding embezzling C f . Ex p a r t e C l a r e , 456 So. 2d 357 restitution order where defendant (upholding pursuant admitted moneys i n an amount g r e a t e r t h a n t h a t s t a t e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t ) ; Moore v. S t a t e , 706 So. 2d 265 1996) ( A l a . 1984) to plea restitution bargain order where ( A l a . Crim. defendant App. agreed t o compensate a l l v i c t i m s o f h i s t h e f t ) ; P o l l a r d v. S t a t e , 593 So. 2d 95 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) ( u p h o l d i n g r e s t i t u t i o n o r d e r where d e f e n d a n t p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o possession of a forged instrument sentencing In and a d m i t t e d conduct d u r i n g hearing). this case, Jones was charged by seven separate i n d i c t m e n t s w i t h second-degree c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of a forged instrument. S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 9 - 6 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s : 10 "A CR-08-1556 person commits t h e c r i m e o f c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t i n the second degree i f he p o s s e s s e s o r u t t e r s any f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t o f a k i n d s p e c i f i e d i n S e c t i o n 13A-9-3 w i t h k n o w l e d g e t h a t i t i s f o r g e d and w i t h i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d . " A l l seven c h a r g e s were s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . found Jones guilty of only two counts However, t h e j u r y of second-degree c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f a f o r g e d i n s t r u m e n t and a c q u i t t e d h e r of the remaining first five activity five. charges, relative Because Jones there to i s no those charges was acquitted conviction and of criminal and Jones on t h o s e c h a r g e s c a n n o t be o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n checks, on t h e under the t h r e s h o l d d e f i n i t i o n of " c r i m i n a l 6 6 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code. 1975. F u r t h e r , no e v i d e n c e e x i s t s record supporting a j u d i c i a l conduct related t o those activity" a d m i s s i o n by J o n e s five checks, and J o n e s o r d e r e d t o make r e s t i t u t i o n u n d e r t h e a l t e r n a t i v e in § 15-18-66(1), a d m i t t e d by" Jones. A l a . Code. i n § 15-18i n the to criminal cannot definition 1975, i . e . , " c r i m i n a l conduct A l t h o u g h t h e r e was some e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t e n d i n g t o show t h a t Jones h a d some m i s g i v i n g s a f t e r c a s h i n g s e v e r a l o f t h e c h e c k s , we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s the type be of admission contemplated 11 by § t o be 15-18-66(1), A l a . CR-08-1556 Code. 1975, o r Day, s u p r a , o r Webb, s u p r a . can be o r d e r e d t o p a y r e s t i t u t i o n checks totaling Accordingly, restitution counterfeit restitution the t r i a l $1,960 the t r i a l checks. court improperly o f $6,860 Consequently, award i s r e v e r s e d , Jones o n l y on t h e two c o u n t e r f e i t f o r which i n t h e amount Therefore, she was ordered convicted. Jones t o pay on a l l s e v e n the trial of the court's a n d t h e c a u s e i s remanded f o r c o u r t t o amend i t s j u d g m e n t a c c o r d i n g l y . REVERSED AND REMANDED. Wise, P.J., a n d W e l c h , Windom, a n d K e l l u m , 12 J J . , concur.

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.