Troy Andrew Smiley v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 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 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-07-2275 T r o y Andrew Smiley v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Lee C i r c u i t (CC-08-306) On Remand f r o m KELLUM, Court t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , T r o y Andrew S m i l e y , court's revocation of h i s probation. that thec i r c u i t appealed the c i r c u i t Smiley a r g u e d on a p p e a l court erred i n revoking h i s probation based CR-07-2275 on a l l e g e d misconduct that occurred and placed circuit on probation. court's This judgment S m i l e y v. S t a t e , [Ms. (Ala. court revoking before he a g r e e d and sentenced reversed the probation. Smiley's See 2009). C r i m . App. The State certiorari 2010, petitioned review, the CR-07-2275, May was Alabama So. Supreme Court reversed this 3d Court w h i c h t h e Supreme C o u r t g r a n t e d . Supreme h o l d i n g t h a t the the 1, 2009] Court's On May for 7, judgment, c i r c u i t c o u r t , as t h e s o l e f a c t - f i n d e r i n a p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , d i d not exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e v o k i n g S m i l e y ' s p r o b a t i o n b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d the probation-revocation 1081502, May In circuit light 7, of 2010] the hearing. So. 3d v. State, [Ms. ( A l a . 2010). Supreme C o u r t ' s c o u r t ' s judgment r e v o k i n g Smiley at holding, Smiley's we affirm probation. the 1 We n o t e t h a t on May 24, 2010, 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 t h a t p u r p o r t e d t o r e i n s t a t e i t s o r d e r s revoking S m i l e y ' s p r o b a t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . However, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e i n s t a t e i t s orders revoking Smiley's probation because j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e c a s e r e m a i n e d w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t u n t i l May 25, 2010, the date i t i s s u e d the c e r t i f i c a t e of j u d g m e n t i n t h i s c a s e , a t w h i c h p o i n t t h e c a s e was remanded t o t h i s C o u r t . "'The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f one c a s e c a n n o t be i n two 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 So. 2d 847, 848 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t i n g Ex 1 2 CR-07-2275 AFFIRMED. W i s e , P . J . , a n d W e l c h , Windom, and M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . p a r t e H a r g e t t , 772 So. 2d 481, 483 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) . T h e r e f o r e , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t l a c k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r any o r d e r on May 24, 2 0 1 0 ; t h u s , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s May 24, 2010, o r d e r p u r p o r t i n g t o r e i n s t a t e S m i l e y ' s p r o b a t i o n i s v o i d . See G o r d o n v. S t a t e , 710 So. 2d 943, 945 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 8 ) ( q u o t i n g M c K i n n e y v. S t a t e , 549 So. 2d 166, 168 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , i t i s now n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o e n t e r a new o r d e r i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n . 3

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.