Ronnie Lee Gholston v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/05/2010 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-07-0788 R o n n i e Lee G h o l s t o n v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WINDOM, from Franklin Circuit (CC-07-21) Court Judge. Ronnie degree rape, Lee G h o l s t o n a violation degree kidnapping, first-degree appeals o f § 1 3 A - 6 - 6 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; a violation robbery, h i s convictions f o r f i r s t first- o f § 13A-6-43, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ; a violation o f § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code CR-07-0788 1975; 3, first-degree Ala. Code theft 1975; violation of sentenced and Gholston kidnapping, in § and around of s i x o'clock As A.C. leave and gun to ordered the A.C. driver's The sentences vehicle, circuit for unauthorized and 808-09.) Gholston rape, years use d i d not a court the of p r o p e r t y the work, her seat. At 231, A.C. gunpoint of evening have the the of file a any her (R. the facts point, at sexual 240-48.) 2 will closed 229-31.) seat, Gholston the field, from the store 2006. some he drove bushes Gholston intercourse with then got A.C. him. (R. Taurus Gholston and of suffice. 2003 b l a c k F o r d emerged passenger Once sufficiency of November 29, Gholston that 240.) to challenge Cash America, head. into (R. not getting into to get field. at life Advance was to a 1975. recitation on automobile put Code a 13A-8- to 2 terms of 20 does a brief employee 222-23.) of c o n v i c t i o n s and (R. Gholston evidence, an use of § motions. Because A.C., Ala. three theft convictions. postjudgment the to robbery a violation unauthorized 13A-8-11, p r i s o n f o r the vehicle of p r o p e r t y , into to a forced (R. CR-07-0788 S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , G h o l s t o n t o l d A.C. her b a c k t o C a s h A d v a n c e A m e r i c a and she did not give him When t h e y r e t u r n e d got the money m o n e y , he phone. the s t o r e , A.C. to (R. testified and with Gholston. that had n e v e r met not consent Little (R. any After would k i l l the store. went i n t o returned to A.C. with taking (R. the i f 248.) store and vehicle and Gholston the the gave her A.C.'s p u r s e and cell 239, of Gholston not using caused drugs 257.) She before this Gholston's identified her to during fear the demands Gholston and or from her encounter further testified incident for that that she she did actions. a (R. photographic 279.) Maurice November 29, testified Taurus. He the next seat that was also Terrence on she to (R. Gholston Gholston. Gholston A.C. lineup. then was 254-56.) life 257.) She inside d r o v e away i n A . C . ' s c a r A.C. 400; money money f r o m a s a f e . gave t h a t he the to t h a t he testified 2006, d u r i n g t h a t G h o l s t o n was further to Little testified Gholston that that 408.) 3 that he met with a drug d e a l . (R. 400.) driving a dark-colored he looked saw like something a gun. Ford shiny (R. on 399¬ CR-07-0788 Officer Department, from of Hughes in however, of Muscle Shoals r e c o v e r e d A.C.'s Police vehicle to a r e s i d e n c e l o c a t e d Shoals. apprehended A.C.'s jumped attempted to out (R. of flee. Gholston vehicle, 457.) (R. and officers a back After 460.) placed recovered window off the S c o t t y Lowery, Department, told officers vehicle the Pogue, under arrest. him A.C.'s City cell (R. of Gholston Gholston and the a drug problem money. and t h a t he h a d Investigator Lowery t h a t G h o l s t o n " a d m i t t e d t o e v e r y t h i n g ... rape" except incident. (R. 466.) Russellville testified and phone his arrest, t h a t he h a d that after the A c c o r d i n g to I n v e s t i g a t o r Lowery, gave a s t a t e m e n t . testified of of Officer amount o f U n i t e d S t a t e s c u r r e n c y . Investigator A.C.'s City connected Muscle Gholston and a large Police the that officers t h a t was Road parked, Inside of a r r i v e d a t t h e Hughes Road r e s i d e n c e where A.C.'s c a r residence and testified a driveway officers was Mike Pogue, having a gun on the evening of taken further except the the alleged 522.) I On appeal, Gholston argues that his constitutional rights were v i o l a t e d because the j u r y v e n i r e d i d not r e p r e s e n t a 4 fair CR-07-0788 cross-section contends of the that In in violation Amendments t o Duren Specifically, African-Americans underrepresented Fourteenth population. v. the of the United Missouri, 439 Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d were systematically Sixth, Eighth, and States Constitution. U.S. States Gholston 357, 364 (1979), the explained: "In order to e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e v i o l a t i o n of the f a i r - c r o s s - s e c t i o n requirement, the defendant must show (1) t h a t t h e g r o u p a l l e g e d t o be e x c l u d e d i s a ' d i s t i n c t i v e ' g r o u p i n t h e c o m m u n i t y ; (2) t h a t the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h i s group i n v e n i r e s from w h i c h j u r i e s a r e s e l e c t e d i s n o t f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e number o f s u c h p e r s o n s i n t h e c o m m u n i t y ; and (3) t h a t t h i s u n d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i s due t o s y s t e m a t i c e x c l u s i o n o f t h e g r o u p i n t h e j u r y - s e l e c t i o n process." The Duren C o u r t d e f i n e d s y s t e m a t i c e x c l u s i o n as e x c l u s i o n t h a t is "inherent utilized." 1543, 1549 Id. at exclusion. State, (internal particular 366; as see 'inherent utilized.'"). ensures only v. the ( 1 1 t h C i r . 1983) 'systematic' process in jury-selection a l s o Gibson i n the "[T]he citations 2d and 907, ... cross-section F.2d defined requirement f r e e of systematic particular venire." 945 quotations 5 705 particular jury-selection fair I t does n o t e n s u r e any So. Zant, ("[T]he Duren C o u r t a v e n i r e o f r a n d o m n e s s , one 891 v. process (Ala. Crim. omitted). App. "Rather Gavin 2003) than CR-07-0788 being e n t i t l e d to a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l venire, a d e f e n d a n t has a r i g h t o n l y t o a f a i r c h a n c e , b a s e d on a random draw, o f h a v i n g a jury drawn from a representative c i t a t i o n s and q u o t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . held that the panel." Id. (internal T h i s C o u r t has repeatedly random d r a w i n g o f v e n i r e m e m b e r s f r o m a l i s t of l i c e n s e d d r i v e r s s a t i s f i e s the f a i r - c r o s s - s e c t i o n requirement. See i d . at 946-47; C a r r o l l ( A l a . C r i m . App. (Ala. 1996); ( A l a . C r i m . App. During the r e l a t i n g to the list on of the veniremembers So. State, failed systematically County. hand, are 630 807-08 2d 961, So. Courts to 147, establish that presented summoned f o r j u r y presented from voters in Franklin from l i c e n s e d evidence selected lists County. randomly 972 2d excluded Gholston randomly of venire 720 801, from no jury evidence system used i n F r a n k l i n County to g e n e r a t e Office Because 2d v. Gholston i n d i v i d u a l s t o be other So. 1993). are in Franklin 852 State, Sistrunk hearing, African-Americans venires State, 1 9 9 9 ) ; Clemons v. C r i m . App. 149-50 v. by of driver's (R. duty. that the The the State, indicated that Administrative 207.) selecting drivers and 6 license holders and potential jurors for the registered voters provided CR-07-0788 Gholston "'"a fair c h a n c e , b a s e d on a j u r y drawn f r o m a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 2d at that 945, failed to panel,"'" meet h i s Gavin, burden A f r i c a n - A m e r i c a n s were s y s t e m a t i c a l l y venire. this Gholston a random draw, o f Accordingly, Gholston i s not to 891 So. establish excluded entitled having to from his relief on issue. II. Gholston also argues that the trial excluded evidence o f A.C.'s d r u g u s e . contends t h a t the trial presenting A.C. use Craig's that testimony drugs on testimony she does was not C r a i g ' s t e s t i m o n y was that the of he A.C. incident, property It the and is well trial court admissibility of George Craig drugs. from C r a i g had seen to Gholston, i m p e a c h A.C.'s testimony also asserts a d m i s s i b l e to support Gholston's s e x was together consensual, s t o r e was settled are that Gholston were u s i n g drugs the Gholston him According a d m i s s i b l e to t h a t the from Specifically, occasions. use erroneously court erroneously prevented from two court A.C.'s that "'[w]hen reviewed evidence on 7 and the defense evening t h a t the of theft idea. evidentiary rulings appeal, are w i t h i n on that the "rulings on sound d i s c r e t i o n of the of CR-07-0788 the trial abuse of Motors, (Ala. 2d j u d g e and that 63, [Ms. (Ala. I n c . v. 1998)). d i s t u r b e d on Swanstrom 1 0 8 0 2 6 9 , Nov. 2001), Court quoting will 301 So. 1990) 2d 78, (quoting 83 in Inc., 723 State, Starr As the abused relating to admissible drugs, to extent i t s discretion A.C.'s to this past drug i m p e a c h A.C.'s argument is Ala. that she incident. She also She a s k e d w h e t h e r she not not t h a t the testified because his ever she on the has court does testimony was does not use At the circuit testimony she merit. that 8 210, circuit Craig's that drugs had (Ala. 204, that the testimony. testimony use 54 below, Gholston excluding use 53, alleges without testified was did by court's Craig's Gholston (Ala. such evidence i n explained excluding So. Party 32 circuit 293 i t s discretion court a 2d abused First, 2d 29, So. to meet h i s b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h 827 Best Starr, v. , Inc., 563 failed by So. an Cont'l 3d Bama's reverse absent Teledyne So. turn not (1974)). v. 2009] i n e i t h e r a d m i t t i n g or e x c l u d i n g App. appeal Wal-Mart Stores, a b s e n c e of a b u s e . ' " C a s s a d y v. Crim. 20, T u p p e r w a r e , U.S., This "'ruling be ( q u o t i n g Bowers v. 71 Sales, not discretion."'" Inc., 2009) will trial, night not use used drugs i n the A.C. of the drugs. past. CR-07-0788 B e c a u s e A.C. the past, use drugs was on or Moreover, whether impeached even in to r e l i e f i t because used drugs therefore, matter. on "'The 1123, turn C. 1139 585 3A the is Crim. So. that See App. Alabama 1999) (same); 1 § 1003 issue. relating (explaining t h a t a p a r t y may after the a A.C.'s incident § So. W. may not citing rev. 2d 1 1 2 3 , to impeach and be So. v. in 1970) 156.01(1) § 156.01(1) attempt Brundage 1991), Gamble on collateral witness (Chadbourn Charles 9 to which App. Evidence, Goodwin, M c E l r o y ' s Alabama Evidence Therefore, (quoting a l s o B a l l a r d v . S t a t e , 767 1999) have B a l l a r d v . S t a t e , 767 (Ala. Crim. McElroy's not court a 2d Evidence would involved App. 240 A.C. f o r w h i c h G h o l s t o n was (Ala. Crim. 238, seen the c i r c u i t well testimony rule in instances during two occurred Craig's general W i g m o r e on Gamble 1977)). the testimony i m p e a c h e d on a c o l l a t e r a l m a t t e r . ' " State, past drugs had testimony. t h a t formed the b a s i s of the charges 2d ever used t h a t he the A.C.'s i f Craig's excluded allegedly trial; had testimony occasions entitled she w o u l d c o n t r a d i c t A.C.'s t e s t i m o n y , correctly A.C. two i s not drug use asked Craig's proffered contradicted Gholston not and (3d ed. 1139 (Ala. Robert (6th ed. J. 2009) a witness by CR-07-0788 questioning matter; that witness however, "the about an inconsistent impeaching party witness'[s] a n s w e r c o n c e r n i n g t h e m a t t e r -- proof be may offered c o l l a t e r a l matter"); trial, upon "'[a] an other of the is the § 585 156.01(3)). collateral is So. 2d in independently at turn 3A At he of first Craig, (quoting Wigmore § trial, know A.C. basis 1139 of Craig, i n November extrinsic concerns 2d at test 240, nor neither for the i n some means So. 2d at for determining turn whether to any contradiction?"'" Brundage, 585 So. 2d at fact, a as the the 1139 in quoting "'"Could a In a c r i m i n a l case 7 67 the h a v e b e e n shown i n e v i d e n c e f o r Ballard, 240, 767 quoting 1003). in a proffer, testified 2006 when this appeal met A.C. during the summer o f during Evid. credibility follows: which e r r o r i s predicated, purpose i . e . , no the Ballard, The as of witness' So. accept i f i t i s "admissible pleadings inconsistency.'" Brundage, McElroy's, fact under must inconsistency R u l e 6 0 6 ( b ) , A l a . R. impeaching than (quoting the fact is "collateral" issue purpose i f collateral occurred. the the incident Craig summer 2 0 0 7 , he 10 further of that that he did not forms the testified that 2007. According w i t n e s s e d A.C. use to drugs CR-07-0788 on two occasions. admissible drugs. to The Gholston i m p e a c h A.C.'s fact after tried and t h a t A.C. Gholston's Brundage, may was that have used irrelevant any So. 2d Ballard, at 240, 767 So. quoting w h e t h e r A.C. 2d in used drugs at extrinsic evidence t h a t w o u l d have had a ruling excluding saw show use that incident, his to C r a i g ' s until used argument months failed to no matter, occasions with some on the except discretion. testimony night see proffer the crime any 11 her that of to the According use occurred. evidence that admissible d i d not after to court's merit. or point constituted i s likewise without m e e t A.C. § collateral circuit w o u l d be Gholston (quoting relevance the that Wigmore a testimony argues that Craig's two drugs was c o n s t i t u t e an a b u s e o f Gholston p r o f f e r , he many Gholston collateral d r u g s on A.C. proffered i t d i d not the e x t e n t A.C. being purpose 1139 3A Craig's on at turn Because he point issues "'"for presented matter. To some the a f t e r N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 6 , when t h e c r i m e o c c u r r e d , A.C. at c o n t r a d i c t i [ n g ] " ' " A.C.'s t e s t i m o n y Consequently, impeach use have drugs. been does not she drugs to was ... use 585 testimony testimony not of does not 1003). crime could independently she argued that Craig's drugs Further, would connect CR-07-0788 A.C.'s a l l e g e d d r u g u s e a f t e r during time the crime. Because of the crime after the determined occurred, Craig's the use drugs circuit Bedsole v. S t a t e , 2006) act to (holding that court 974 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 4 , 1040 "the determination discretion determination has abused use involved of the t r i a l of whether basis judge, a p r i o r bad and i s l e f t and t h e w i l l n o t b e d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s and Craig's her specific testimony character instances relating was of inadmissible misconduct. Evidence A l a . R. E v i d . ; h o w e v e r , s p e c i f i c 404(a)(2)(A), misconduct the character See Harrington v. State, 12 of a instances to e s t a b l i s h the v i c t i m ' s trait of a charge, c l a i m , or defense." i t i n some i n s t a n c e s p u r s u a n t t o are not admissible unless alleged because Rule Evid. judge's the judge t o A.C.'s i s admissible character guilt. ( A l a . C r i m . App. victim's character of was his discretion"). Moreover, drug well correctly to Gholston's i s t o o r e m o t e i s made on a c a s e - b y - c a s e t h e sound until t e s t i m o n y r e l a t e d t o an a c t t h a t too remote t o t h e i n c i d e n t and i r r e l e v a n t See a l l e g e d drug use C r a i g d i d n o t know A.C. a r o u n d t h e a n d d i d n o t s e e A.C. crime that the crime with i s an " e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t R u l e 405(a) 858 So. 2d a n d ( b ) , A l a . R. 278 , 2 93 ( A l a . CR-07-0788 C r i m . App. 2002). Because G h o l s t o n sought character through trait instances Craig's Cf. of misconduct, testimony Rule 404(b), evidence the c i r c u i t relating A l a . R. t o e s t a b l i s h A.C.'s relating ("Evidence wrongs, or a c t s i s not a d m i s s i b l e t o prove person i n order Therefore, t o show Gholston action specific court correctly t o A.C.'s a l l e g e d Evid., to drug excluded use. I d . ; of other crimes, the character of a i n conformity therewith."). i s not e n t i t l e d to r e l i e f on t h i s issue. III. Finally, whether this Gholston's Court convictions t h e F i f t h Amendment In his Double the facts robbery. brief, for theft Jeopardy This case, Court parties for theft to address and r o b b e r y violate of the United States. Gholston argues of property Clause of t h i s the to the Constitution supplemental convictions ordered and of the F i f t h Amendment theft agrees. robbery that violate because, i s a lesser-included his the under offense of 1 T h i s C o u r t notes t h a t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d use o f a v e h i c l e i s not a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d offense of t h e f t or robbery. See Holman v. S t a t e , 495 So. 2d 115, 119 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ; see a l s o C r o w d e r v. S t a t e , 476 So. 2d 1241, 1243 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . T h e r e f o r e , G h o l s t o n ' s c o n v i c t i o n f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e u n a u t h o r i z e d use o f a v e h i c l e does n o t v i o l a t e t h e D o u b l e Jeopardy Clause. 1 13 CR-07-0788 The Supreme C o u r t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s h e l d t h a t t h e Double Jeopardy Clause o f t h e F i f t h Amendment c o n t a i n s three p r o t e c t i o n s : " I t p r o t e c t s a g a i n s t a second p r o s e c u t i o n f o r the same o f f e n s e prosecution after acquittal. I t protects against f o r t h e same o f f e n s e after conviction. p r o t e c t s a g a i n s t m u l t i p l e p u n i s h m e n t s f o r t h e same North C a r o l i n a v. P e a r c e , 395 U.S. 711, 717 omitted), o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r U.S. (1989). 794 (1994)(reaffirming Jeopardy Clause). And i t offense." (1969)(footnotes g r o u n d s , A l a b a m a v. S m i t h , See S c h i r o the a second v. F a r l e y , three 510 U.S. protections of 490 222, 229 the Double "These p r o t e c t i o n s s t e m f r o m t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r e m i s e t h a t a d e f e n d a n t s h o u l d n o t be t w i c e t r i e d o r p u n i s h e d f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . " States v. W i l s o n , S c h i r o , 510 U.S. a t 229 ( c i t i n g 420 U.S. 332, 339 (1975)). United The A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t t h e D o u b l e J e o p a r d y C l a u s e of Art. I § 9, o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 0 1 , a p p l i e s t o p r o t e c t only those three areas enumerated i n Pearce. See Ex parte W r i g h t , 477 So. 2d 492, 493 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Adams v. S t a t e , 955 So. 2d 1037, 1098 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , r e v e r s e d g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e Adams, 955 So. 2d 1106 ( A l a . 2005) 14 on other (holding CR-07-0788 t h a t Adams, who was 17 y e a r s i s not e l i g i b l e States of the offense, f o r a sentence of death). In B l o c k b u r g e r United o l d a t the time v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e Supreme C o u r t o f t h e enumerated the "same elements" test for d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r two c h a r g e s c o n s t i t u t e t h e same o f f e n s e i n violation of the Double Jeopardy Amendment. 284 U.S. 299, 304 test, "where violation applied one the same o f two d i s t i n c t Clause (1932). a c t or constitutes a r e two o f f e n s e s a I d . (emphasis added). has a l s o h e l d "that 432 U.S. 1 6 1 , 166 n.6 The U n i t e d a lesser (1977). or only of a fact included g r e a t e r o f f e n s e a r e t h e same u n d e r B l o c k b u r g e r Ohio, Fifth s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e t e s t t o be i s whether each p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s p r o o f Supreme C o u r t the Under t h e B l o c k b u r g e r transaction t o determine whether there t h e o t h e r does n o t . " of which States and a Brown v . See a l s o P e r k i n s o n v. S t a t e , 273 Ga. 491, 494, 542 S.E.2d 92, 95 (2001) ("For d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p u r p o s e s , a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d and a g r e a t e r o f f e n s e a r e the 'same offense' under the F i f t h Amendment because the l e s s e r o f f e n s e r e q u i r e s no p r o o f b e y o n d t h a t w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d for the c o n v i c t i o n of the greater offense."). 15 CR-07-0788 The part, indictment against Gholston alleged, i n pertinent the f o l l o w i n g : "Count 3: Theft of Property i n the First-Degree "The Grand Jury o f F r a n k l i n County charges, before the finding of this i n d i c t m e n t , R o n n i e L e e G h o l s t o n , w h o s e name i s o t h e r w i s e unknown t o t h e G r a n d J u r y t h a n as s t a t e d , d i d k n o w i n g l y o b t a i n o r e x e r t u n a u t h o r i z e d c o n t r o l o v e r , t o - w i t : a 2003 Ford Taurus, the p r o p e r t y of [A.C.], w i t h intent to deprive t h e owner of said p r o p e r t y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-8-3 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a , against t h e peace and d i g n i t y o f the State of Alabama. "Count 4: R o b b e r y i n the F i r s t Degree "The Grand Jury o f F r a n k l i n County charges, before the finding of this i n d i c t m e n t , R o n n i e L e e G h o l s t o n , w h o s e name i s o t h e r w i s e unknown t o t h e G r a n d J u r y t h a n as s t a t e d , d i d , i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g a theft of property, t o - w i t : Lawful United S t a t e s C u r r e n c y a n d / o r a 2003 F o r d T a u r u s , the p r o p e r t y o f Advance Cash A m e r i c a and/or [A.C.], w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o overcome h e r p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e o r p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e or t o compel acquiescence t ot h e taking of or escaping with the property, while the said Ronnie Lee Gholston represented himself t o be armed with a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t , t o w i t : a p i s t o l , i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-8-41 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a , a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e and d i g n i t y o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama." (C.R. 12-13.) 16 CR-07-0788 Further, "[a] if person he commits violates deadly Ala. § 13A-8-41(a)(1), weapon Code the crime A l a . Code 1975, of robbery S e c t i o n 13A-8-43 and or 1975, dangerous p r o v i d e s as he i n the ... instrument." provides first that degree [ i ] s armed w i t h Section a 13A-8-43, follows: "(a) A p e r s o n commits the crime of r o b b e r y i n the t h i r d degree i f i n the course of c o m m i t t i n g a t h e f t he: "(1) Uses f o r c e a g a i n s t the p e r s o n of the owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to overcome h i s p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e or p h y s i c a l power of r e s i s t a n c e ; or "(2) T h r e a t e n s the imminent use of f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n o f t h e owner o r any p e r s o n p r e s e n t w i t h i n t e n t to compel acquiescence to the t a k i n g of or e s c a p i n g w i t h the p r o p e r t y . " (Emphasis added.) first-degree S e c t i o n 13A-8-3, theft A l a . Code as following: including the 1975, " ( a ) The t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y w h i c h e x c e e d s t h o u s a n d f i v e h u n d r e d d o l l a r s ($2,500) i n v a l u e , property o f any v a l u e t a k e n f r o m the person another, c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f t of p r o p e r t y i n the f i degree. defines two or of rst " ( b ) The t h e f t o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e , r e g a r d l e s s o f its value, constitutes theft of p r o p e r t y i n the f i r s t d e g r e e . ... " G h o l s t o n was charged w i t h f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t f o r s t e a l i n g A.C.'s 2003 F o r d T a u r u s automobile. 17 G h o l s t o n was also charged CR-07-0788 with first-degree while armed w i t h "Lawful United (C.R. 13) jury that robbery f o r threatening a d e a d l y weapon w h i l e States Currency (emphasis added). i t could robbery based Taurus. on (R. and/or Gholston the underlying 776.) committing a The c i r c u i t find Therefore, the use 2003 court guilty theft the force a theft Ford of Taurus" i n s t r u c t e d the of first-degree o f A.C.'s jury of 2003 could have Ford found G h o l s t o n g u i l t y o f f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t and f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery based i.e., on 2003 F o r d the unlawful that "[b]ased and t h e f a c t s the t h e f t could have of ( A l a .Crim. property therefore, property during the Crayton C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; property, App. was the v. murder course theft State, underlying 949 of 2d (holding that the robbery 978 ( A l a . 6 So. 3d 1205, first-degree offense of for first-degree capital because robbery violated 18 [conviction 976, D e a r d o r f f v. S t a t e , convictions a So. of the i t i s clear f o r the t h e f t lesser-included made elements i n the indictments, same 2004) a the s t a t u t o r y the basis see a l s o Deardorff's and on alleged forming been] [conviction]." 1215 o f t h e same Taurus. Accordingly, crimes taking i t was theft robbery; theft of committed double-jeopardy a CR-07-0788 principles). offense, offense Consequently, as a l l e g e d the f i r s t - d e g r e e theft of property i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , was a of the f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery lesser-included o f f e n s e , and Gholston's c o n v i c t i o n s f o r both crimes v i o l a t e t h e Double Jeopardy of t h e F i f t h Amendment. (defining a See § 1 3 A - 1 - 9 ( a ) ( 1 ) , lesser-included offense as an Clause A l a . Code 1975 offense that i s " e s t a b l i s h e d b y p r o o f o f t h e same o r f e w e r t h a n a l l t h e f a c t s r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h the commission of the offense charged"); Lewis v. S t a t e , (Ala. Clause [Ms. C R - 0 6 - 1 7 7 0 , O c t . 2, 200 9] Crim. App. 2009) of the F i f t h greater State, offense 999 So. "simultaneous offenses" (holding Amendment and a 2d 992, 1006 t h e Double convictions lesser-included convictions constitute bars that So. 3d Jeopardy f o r both offense); ( A l a . 2007) , Heard (holding a v. that [ f o r ] g r e a t e r and lesser-included jurisdictional double-jeopardy a violation). For the foregoing reasons, this Court affirms convictions and sentences forfirst-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery, vehicle. circuit However, this Court court with directions rape, Gholston's first-degree and u n a u t h o r i z e d use o f a remands this cause to the f o r the c i r c u i t court to vacate 19 CR-07-0788 Gholston's conviction and s e n t e n c e property. s h o u l d be f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n 42 Due r e t u r n days from t h e date o f t h i s AFFIRMED forfirst-degree t h e f t of opinion. I N PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Wise, P . J . , and Welch, K e l l u m , and Main, 20 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.