Fredrick Darnell Banks v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/05/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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-08-0769 F r e d r i c k D a r n e l l Banks v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CC-08-2930) Court MAIN, J u d g e . Fredrick robbery, Darnell Banks was c o n v i c t e d of first-degree a v i o l a t i o n o f § 1 3 A - 8 - 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 1975. The t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d Banks t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t . followed. This appeal CR-08-0769 Patty store Thompkins, an employee i n M o b i l e County, of testified a Winn-Dixie grocery t h a t on J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , she was w o r k i n g a t t h e s t o r e and n o t i c e d a b l a c k m a l e , later i d e n t i f i e d as B a n k s , w e a r i n g d a r k c l o t h i n g e n t e r t h e s t o r e a t approximately uneasy about 11:30 p.m. the male. Thompkins He w a l k e d stated around that she felt the store with one i t e m , a b a g o f dog f o o d , i n h i s buggy and c o n t i n u o u s l y t a l k e d on h i s c e l l u l a r telephone. When he approached Thompkins's c h e c k o u t r e g i s t e r , he no l o n g e r h a d t h e dog f o o d i n h i s buggy. Instead, he h e l d telephone. card. Thompkins He which a soft drink asked him p r o v i d e d Thompkins Thompkins used to and c o n t i n u e d t o t a l k f o r h i s Winn-Dixie with access on h i s a phone number h i s card. While reward instead, she was r i n g i n g up h i s soda p u r c h a s e , Thompkins n o t i c e d h i s e a r r i n g s w h i c h were " p r a y i n g h a n d s " . the s t o r e , another customer, entered the store register. toward the s a l e , he r e m a i n e d i n s t a n d i n g b e t w e e n t h e r e g i s t e r and t h e f r o n t Meanwhile, Alston, After later and s t o o d i n l i n e A l s t o n asked f o r c i g a r e t t e s , the identified customer-service counter as D u s t i n a t Thompkins's and Thompkins to get door. them. walked As she r e t u r n e d f r o m t h e c u s t o m e r - s e r v i c e c o u n t e r , she saw two masked b l a c k men c a r r y i n g guns e n t e r i n g t h e s t o r e . 2 CR-08-0769 Thompkins a t t e m p t e d t o f l e e t h e s t o r e , b u t t h e two masked men grabbed Meanwhile, her Banks at gunpoint, held asking f o r the a gun t o A l s t o n ' s h e a d . manager. The store manager, M i c h a e l B j o r e n s e n , who was on t h e g r o u n d b y t h e s e l f checkout l a n e s , s t o o d up, a n d t h e masked men t o o k and h i m a t g u n p o i n t t o t h e s t o r e o f f i c e . t h e o f f i c e manager, D e n i s e B o u r g , they would The men t h r e a t e n e d t o open t h e o f f i c e d o o r o r s h o o t Thompkins a n d B j o r e n s e n . Thereafter, Bourg, Thompkins t h e men forced Thompkins, Bjorensen, a l o n g w i t h A l s t o n , t o l i e on t h e g r o u n d . cash from t h e s t o r e s a f e , and then brought and The men t o o k another employee, R o n a l d S u t t o n , who h a d b e e n w o r k i n g i n t h e r e a r o f t h e s t o r e , into the o f f i c e . After t h e men left manager t e l e p h o n e d e m e r g e n c y 911. the store, the o f f i c e The men t o o k o v e r $16,000 from t h e s t o r e d u r i n g t h e robbery. Detective Department Dixie David Marston investigated reward account of the C i t y the robbery. used robbery, D e t e c t i v e Marston by Banks of Mobile Based upon Police t h e Winn on t h e e v e n i n g of the s e a r c h e d f o r B a n k s as a p o t e n t i a l suspect. S e v e r a l d a y s a f t e r t h e r o b b e r y , on J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , officers d e t a i n e d B a n k s when t h e y white Cadillac, broken down came upon h i s v e h i c l e , and i n t h e m i d d l e 3 of a a road. CR-08-0769 After waiving h i s Miranda 1 rights, Banks told Detective Marston t h a t he h a d n e v e r b e e n i n s i d e t h e W i n n - D i x i e store. He later admitted t h a t he was grocery a t t h e s t o r e on t h e e v e n i n g o f J a n u a r y 2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , " b u t d i d n o t see a n y t h i n g . " 337.) During earrings the i n t e r v i e w , t h a t Thompkins Banks wore h a d n o t i c e d on (R. the " p r a y i n g hands" the evening of the robbery. Detective Marston obtained a search warrant vehicle. The photographs of Banks, money wrapper Winn-Dixie search marked grocery resulted a black with and the robbery pants, of where number took two a of the place was The o f f i c e r s f o u n d no money guns i n t h e v e h i c l e . Sheri Banks, Banks's mother, t e s t i f i e d before h i s arrest, man seizure and address f o u n d i n s i d e one o f t h e p o c k e t s . or the jacket, the s t o r e where in f o r Banks's B a n k s t e l e p h o n e d h e r and t o l d h e r t h a t a h a d p u l l e d a gun on h i m . police. t h a t a few d a y s She i n s t r u c t e d h i m t o c a l l A f t e r r e c e i v i n g the telephone c a l l went t o h e r s i s t e r ' s house and t e l e p h o n e d the f r o m h e r s o n , she the p o l i c e . When the p o l i c e a r r i v e d a t S h e r i Bank's s i s t e r ' s house, t h e o f f i c e r 1 Miranda v. A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 4 436 (1966) CR-08-0769 p r e p a r e d an reported incident report. the Banks testified t h a t Banks also i n c i d e n t to the p o l i c e . first prohibiting him argues from that the introducing r e p o r t f o r m e n a c i n g he filed he the said, She r e l a t e d to trial court i n t o evidence erred an incident a f t e r the r o b b e r y ; the issue of flight. in evidence, B a n k s moved to a d m i t t h e i n c i d e n t r e p o r t , w h i c h he a r g u e d showed t h a t someone had threatened days after robbery, him the but with January before b e c a u s e he c l a i m e d he a gun 2008,at the was arrested on d i d not J a n u a r y 28, admissible Winn 2008, several Dixie January store 30, 2008, to rebut the State's e l u d i n g the p o l i c e f o l l o w i n g the robbery a t t h e Winn D i x i e g r o c e r y court J a n u a r y 28, 23, t h a t i t was e v i d e n c e t h a t he was on store. We conclude t h a t the trial exceed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r e f u s i n g to admit 2008, i n c i d e n t report. "'"The a d m i s s i o n o r e x c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e i s a m a t t e r w i t h i n the sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " T a y l o r v. S t a t e , 808 So. 2d 1148, 1191 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000), a f f ' d , 808 So. 2d 1215 (Ala. 2001). "The q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of evidence i s g e n e r a l l y l e f t to the d i s c r e t i o n of the trial court, and the trial court's d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h a t q u e s t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d e x c e p t upon a c l e a r s h o w i n g o f abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " Ex p a r t e L o g g i n s , 5 the CR-08-0769 771 So. 2d 1093, 1103 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . In addition, " [ t ] r i a l courts are vested with considerable discretion i n determining whether e v i d e n c e i s r e l e v a n t , and such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d a b s e n t p l a i n e r r o r o r an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n . " Hayes v . S t a t e , 717 So. 2d 30, 36 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) . ' " G a v i n v. S t a t e , App. 2 0 0 3 ) . " Woods v . S t a t e , Rule 891 So. 2d 907, 963 13 So. 3d 1, 23 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . 401, A l a . R . E v i d . , "evidence (Ala. Crim. having defines any t e n d e n c y relevant evidence as t o make t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any f a c t t h a t i s o f consequence t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e a c t i o n more p r o b a b l e o r l e s s p r o b a b l e t h a n i t w o u l d evidence." Although relevant evidence be w i t h o u t t h e i s a d m i s s i b l e , Rule 402, A l a . R . E v i d . , i t "may be e x c l u d e d i f i t s p r o b a t i v e v a l u e i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y outweighed by t h e danger o f u n f a i r p r e j u d i c e , confusion of considerations the issues, o f undue or misleading d e l a y , waste presentation of cumulative evidence." the jury, of time, initiated the robbery at the Winn-Dixie the f i l i n g o f an i n c i d e n t or needless R u l e 403, A l a . R . E v i d . B a n k s ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t on J a n u a r y days a f t e r o r by 28, 2008, five g r o c e r y s t o r e , she r e p o r t because h e r son t o l d h e r t h a t someone h a d p u l l e d a gun on h i m a n d t h r e a t e n e d to shoot him. Sheri Banks further 6 t e s t i f i e d that her son, CR-08-0769 B a n k s , gave h i s r e n d i t i o n o f t h e e v e n t s f o r t h e r e p o r t . S h e r i B a n k s t e s t i f i e d and admit the incident argued that B a n k s was counsel the on was report run into after State argued t h a t the trial court relevant Winn-Dixie robbery. found that this case, (Ala. Crim. admissible the not incident report the App. incident See 1999) report Defense would e x c l u s i o n of the affect the See proper defendant's arrest (stating The inadmissible (R. was that the 381, 384.) cumulative 745 the So. 2d of 922, exclusion of e v i d e n c e does n o t c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when evidence rights. law- relevant. was S m i t h v. S t a t e , have been merely e v i d e n c e o f t h e same n a t u r e t h a t was ("The that B e f o r e S h e r i Banks t e s t i f i e d , i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was S h e r i Banks's t e s t i m o n y . not counsel to negate o n l y b o l s t e r e d S h e r i Banks's t e s t i m o n y . In the was Defense s p o k e n t o Banks p r i o r t o h i s f o r the Winn-Dixie robbery. 936 the evidence. a l s o a r g u e d t h a t t h e i n c i d e n t r e p o r t showed t h a t e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s had and c r o s s - e x a m i n e d , B a n k s moved t o incident report the After admitted). i n c i d e n t r e p o r t was outcome o f Ex p a r t e inquiry guilt is the here is other Further, or Banks's the substantial So. 2d 1049, 1050 not whether evidence overwhelming 7 of harmless i n that i t d i d trial Lowe, 514 cumulative but, instead, (Ala. 1987) of whether the a CR-08-0769 substantial right o f t h e defendant has o r p r o b a b l y has been adversely a f f e c t e d . " ) . Therefore, the t r i a l court d i d not e r r in not admitting the incident report. II. Banks n e x t argues t h a t t h e t r i a l to give h i s requested identification the trial jury testimony. court c h a r g e s 6 a n d 7. erred charges c o u r t e r r e d by r e f u s i n g concerning Specifically, i n refusing eyewitness- Banks contends to give proposed (C. 3 3 - 3 4 ; R. 360-61.) Banks's requested j u r y c h a r g e no. 6 p r o v i d e d : "The r e l i a b i l i t y o f e y e w i t n e s s identification has b e e n r a i s e d as an i s s u e i n t h i s case and deserves your a t t e n t i o n . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n testimony i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f b e l i e f o r i m p r e s s i o n b y t h e witness. I t s v a l u e depends upon t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t h e witness had t o observe the o f f e n d e r a t the time of the offense and later t o make a reliable identification, and upon the influences and circumstances under which t h e w i t n e s s made t h e identification. "You must c o n s i d e r t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f e a c h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t n e s s i n t h e same way as any o t h e r witness. C o n s i d e r whether she i s t r u t h f u l , and consider whether she had the capacity and o p p o r t u n i t y t o make a r e l i a b l e o b s e r v a t i o n on t h e matter covered i n h i s testimony. "The S t a t e h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d t h e c r i m e . " 8 that jury CR-08-0769 (C. 33.) Banks's requested jury charge no. 7 p r o v i d e d as follows: "I c h a r g e y o u , members o f t h e j u r y , that i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y b y an e y e w i t n e s s i s i n t h e nature of opinion testimony, and t h e j u r y s h o u l d view and weigh such t e s t i m o n y as i t w o u l d any e x p r e s s i o n of o p i n i o n by a w i t n e s s . " (C. 34.) The following exchange occurred regarding proposed i n s t r u c t i o n s numbered 6 a n d 7: "THE COURT: Number 6. I'm d e n y i n g Number 6 b e c a u s e I'm -- I g i v e t h a t , b u t I d o n ' t t a l k a b o u t t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s , a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s an e x p r e s s i o n o f b e l i e f o r o p i n i o n , and a l l o f t h a t . I've j u s t n e v e r g i v e n a n y t h i n g l i k e t h a t , a n d I d o n ' t i n t e n d t o s t a r t now. I t may be r i g h t , i t may be wrong, b u t I'm g o i n g t o deny t h a t c h a r g e , Number 6. "As w i t h Number 7, s t a t i n g t h a t an e y e w i t n e s s ' s testimony i s i n the nature of opinion testimony. W e l l , most p e o p l e ' s t e s t i m o n y i s t h e i r o p i n i o n . I mean, s o , I d o n ' t know what t h a t meant. So I'm d e n y i n g i t . T h a t ' s 6 a n d 7." (R. 360.) "[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Y e s , s i r . As t o 6 a n d 7, t h e eyewitness, I t h i n k they are c o r r e c t statements of the l a w , and e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t o f t h e P r o s e c u t i o n saying i n her v o i r d i r e that eyewitness testimony i s j u s t as c r e d i b l e as DNA a n d f i n g e r p r i n t s , e t c e t e r a . And I t h i n k t h a t was a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f what e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y i s . B u t i t s t i l l c a n be t e s t e d as t o i t s c r e d i b i l i t y . So I t h i n k t h a t i n l i e u o f t h o s e v o i r d i r e s t a t e m e n t s , t h a t t h o s e w o u l d be a p r o p o s i n t h i s c a s e t o be g i v e n , a n d gravaman t o 9 CR-08-0769 t h e d e f e n s e t h a t i t ' s n o t so much j u s t t h i s i s t h e guy t h a t d i d i t , b u t as t o what t h e y c l a i m t h e y s a w , et cetera. T h a t ' s t h e i r o p i n i o n , and i t c a n s t i l l be a t t a c k e d as t o t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y . They may have a b e l i e f i n i t . So I t h i n k t h e y c o v e r t h a t a s p e c t o f it. I d o n ' t t h i n k i t w i l l be a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d i n your o r a l charge." (R. 361.) We f i r s t q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r Banks a d e q u a t e l y p r e s e r v e d t h i s issue f o r review. Banks a r g u e d a t t r i a l , and he a r g u e s on a p p e a l , t h a t t h e r e f u s e d i n s t r u c t i o n s were c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e l a w and t h a t the o r a l charge. t h e y w o u l d n o t be a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d i n On a p p e a l , Banks c i t e s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n except a u t h o r i t y s t a t i n g only general of law. Rule 28(a)(10), Ala.R.App.P., propositions requires that argument i n an a p p e l l a t e b r i e f c o n t a i n " t h e c o n t e n t i o n s an of the a p p e l l a n t / p e t i t i o n e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , and the reasons t h e r e f o r , w i t h other has c i t a t i o n s to the cases, statutes, a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d o n . " failed Spradlin, to 601 satisfy So. 2d Rule 76, 28(a)(10). 78-79 See ( A l a . 1992) Banks Spradlin (holding v. that c i t a t i o n t o a s i n g l e c a s e w i t h no argument as t o how t h a t c a s e s u p p o r t s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n on a p p e a l was to s a t i s f y Rule 2 8(a)(5), insufficient (now R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) ) , A l a . R . A p p . P . ) . 10 CR-08-0769 However, even i f i t were properly before B a n k s ' s argument i s w i t h o u t m e r i t . the trial judge credibility d i d give Court, The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a lengthy of the witnesses. this charge concerning the The c o u r t gave t h e f o l l o w i n g instruction: "[THE COURT]: I n d e c i d i n g whether o r n o t you b e l i e v e any w i t n e s s , I suggest you a s k y o u r s e l f a few q u e s t i o n s . D i d t h e w i t n e s s i m p r e s s y o u as one who was t e l l i n g t h e t r u t h ? D i d t h e w i t n e s s have any p a r t i c u l a r reason not t o t e l l the t r u t h ? D i d the w i t n e s s have a p e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome o f the case? D i d t h e w i t n e s s h a v e an o p p o r t u n i t y a n d a b i l i t y t o o b s e r v e a c c u r a t e l y t h e t h i n g s he o r s h e testified about? D i d the witness appear t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e q u e s t i o n s c l e a r l y a n d answer them d i r e c t l y ? D i d t h e w i t n e s s ' s t e s t i m o n y d i f f e r from other testimony or other evidence? "The c r e d i b i l i t y o f a w i t n e s s may be i m p e a c h e d or a t t a c k e d by i n t r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e w i t n e s s made a s t a t e m e n t on an e a r l i e r o c c a s i o n w h i c h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t with the witness' t r i a l testimony. " I f you b e l i e v e from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t a w i t n e s s has made a s t a t e m e n t on an e a r l i e r o c c a s i o n w h i c h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e w i t n e s s ' t r i a l testimony, such e v i d e n c e may go t o t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h a t w i t n e s s , and y o u may c o n s i d e r i t a l o n g w i t h a l l o f t h e o t h e r e v i d e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g what w e i g h t y o u w i l l g i v e that witness' testimony. " I w i l l t e l l y o u t h a t a f a c t may be e s t a b l i s h e d as f i r m l y b y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f one w i t n e s s as t h a t o f t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e e n t i r e community. "I charge you t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s i s t o be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e same t e s t a n d g i v e n t h e same c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f w e i g h t as 11 CR-08-0769 t h a t o f any o t h e r w i t n e s s . No more o r no l e s s w e i g h t c a n be g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y s i m p l y b e c a u s e of t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y . are " E v e r y o n e , law enforcement o f f i c e r s and o t h e r s , j u d g e d a n d t r e a t e d t h e same way. "I a l s o charge you t h a t t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e number of w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d . " (R. 392-95.) The t r i a l c o u r t a d e q u a t e l y c o v e r e d t h e r e l e v a n t l e g a l i s s u e s o f t h e case and d i d n o t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o g i v e the requested i n s t r u c t i o n s . 171 ( A l a . 1984) (trial See Ex p a r t e J o n e s , court properly refused 450 So. 2d defendant's r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e s on i d e n t i f i c a t i o n where w i t n e s s identified d e f e n d a n t ) ; M i l l e r v. S t a t e , 687 So. 2d 1281, 1285 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1996) (trial c o u r t thoroughly charged the j u r y on t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e j u r y was t o t r e a t t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y ) ; J e n n i n g s v. S t a t e , 513 So. 2d adequately 91, 94-95 covered ( A l a . Crim. the issue of App. 1987) (trial identification, court and i t s r e f u s a l o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e on t h e same p o i n t of l a w was (Ala. not e r r o r ) ; Crim. App.), 2d 1221 H e n d e r s o n v. S t a t e , 373 So. 2d 1218 c e r t . d e n i e d , Ex p a r t e H e n d e r s o n , 373 So. ( A l a . 1979) (trial court properly refused requested i d e n t i f i c a t i o n e v i d e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n s where r e q u e s t e d c h a r g e s 12 CR-08-0769 were m i s l e a d i n g and indicating that had App.), cert. 1977) (where victim denied, a Ex So. process). or mistake of 2d 533, P a r t e Rowser, witness was pictures is t h a t may no evidence t a i n t e d by defendant 535-536 346 positive t h e r e i s no g o o d r e a s o n human e r r o r this shown Rowser v. S t a t e , 346 defendant t h e r e was that victim's i d e n t i f i c a t i o n police trial); a b s t r a c t because So. in 2d before ( A l a . Crim. 536 (Ala. identifying f o r g i v i n g a charge occur fact i n the the on the identification T h e r e f o r e , e v e n i f t h e i s s u e were p r o p e r l y b e f o r e Court, we would find no error r e f u s a l to g i v e the requested j u r y in the trial court's charges. III. Lastly, reversible hearing, Banks error without investigation this and argues in an that the court sentencing him without allocution, and without report. We must claim i s properly before t h i s In trial Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. first a a committed sentencing presentence determine whether court. 2d 536, 538 ( A l a . 2006), a c o l l a t e r a l - r e v i e w c a s e , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , i n h o l d i n g that a defect nonjurisdictional extensively the in error concept the criminal that of a 13 may trial be indictment waived, court's is a discussed subject-matter CR-08-0769 jurisdiction. Additionally, this c o l l a t e r a l - r e v i e w , "the failure a her defendant conviction she of his and or Court held of the t r i a l right t o have c o u n s e l has to court to appeal appointed on trial court." (Ala. Crim. (Ala. C r i m . App. review, App. "[a] opportunity 2006) . that address imposed i s not In a 950 defendant the court So. 2d 949 before claim." not 1235, So. 2d sentence So. 1237 184 collateral afforded the 949 or jurisdiction t h a t , on was advise a p p e a l i f he State, Court h e l d a jurisdictional A l t h o u g h we State, Shaw v. 2006), t h i s claim to Robey v. on a guilty-plea i s i n d i g e n t i s not a d e f e c t t h a t impacts the of the that 2d a t the is 187. have c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d i n c o l l a t e r a l - r e v i e w p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t an a l l o c u t i o n , t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l a g u i l t y plea c o n v i c t i o n , and appeal are that held the the requirement requirement that opportunity t o s p e a k on hearing exceptions are right t o have c o u n s e l nonjurisdictional errors conclude and the are required that the h i s or her to the that a may appointed be waived, we sentencing hearing be d e f e n d a n t be behalf general to a f f o r d a defendant the afforded at the required in a l l cases 14 in preservation m i n i m a l due which the the sentencing Rule 26.6(b), Ala.R.Crim.P, provides that a sentencing is on rule and process. hearing judge has CR-08-0769 "discretionary" sentencing a u t h o r i t y , unless a hearing i s w a i v e d by t h e p a r t i e s w i t h t h e consent o f t h e c o u r t . the C o m m i t t e e Comments conviction, receiving terms a judge evidence of the following holds bearing sentence a the rule hearing Further, state that "after f o r the purpose of on t h e i s s u e s o f t h e l e n g t h a n d to impose and whether to grant p r o b a t i o n , u n l e s s t h e s t a t u t e g i v e s no d i s c r e t i o n as t o e i t h e r term of sentence Committee or probation." Rule 26.6, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , when a firearm or Comments. Robbery i n the f i r s t degree, weapon was u s e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e r o b b e r y , A felony punishable for by l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t o r by A l a . Code 1975; § 1 3 A - 5 - 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 1 3 A - 5 - 6 ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975. sentenced Banks t o a term 99 y e a r s o r l i f e . determining See § 13A- A l a . Code 1975; a n d § Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o u l d have as s h o r t as 20 y e a r s o r as l o n g as Because the t r i a l Bank's i s a Class imprisonment n o t more t h a n 99 y e a r s o r l e s s t h a n 20 y e a r s . 8-41, deadly sentence, a c o u r t had d i s c r e t i o n i n sentencing hearing was r e q u i r e d , u n l e s s s u c h a h e a r i n g was w a i v e d b y t h e p a r t i e s w i t h the trial Cf. H o l l e y v. S t a t e , (trial court's consent. court's error Rule 26.6(b)(1), 651 So. 2d 50 in sentencing 15 Ala.R.Crim.P.; ( A l a . Crim. defendant App. 1994) without a CR-08-0769 s e n t e n c e h e a r i n g was h a r m l e s s b e c a u s e t h e minimum s e n t e n c e was imposed). The record returned a discloses guilty robbery, the t r i a l him life to that immediately on the charge verdict imprisonment. Thereafter, of f i r s t - d e g r e e as B a n k ' s c o u n s e l . The t r i a l a written the trial judge Banks's of the s h e r i f f . c o u n s e l gave o r a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l to f i l e the j u r y j u d g e adjudged Banks g u i l t y and s e n t e n c e d remanded B a n k s t o t h e c u s t o d y counsel after trial a n d t h e n moved t o w i t h d r a w c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d Banks's notice another attorney t o represent of appeal and B a n k s on a p p e a l . trial appointed (R. 415-16.) F u r t h e r , t h e t r i a l j u d g e e n t e r e d n o t a t i o n s on t h e c a s e - a c t i o n summary a d j u d g i n g B a n k s g u i l t y , o r d e r i n g h i m t o p a y $50 t o t h e crime v i c t i m s compensation fund, spent in jail, appointing guilt, the appellate counsel Although sentencing noting the trial "hearing" the court oral notice f o r Banks. court after a announced Banks's a l l o w i n g Banks t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . not i n d i c a t e t h a t Banks w a i v e d a s e n t e n c i n g v. State, 539 So. 2d 410, 415 16 of f o r time appeal, and (C. 4.) purported immediately merely g i v i n g him c r e d i t to commence determination sentence a of without The r e c o r d does hearing. See Day ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1988) (mere CR-08-0769 acquiescence does hearing). "'A associated with parties argue are not hearing a waiver of o r d i n a r i l y i s defined, full trials, afforded an as sentence i n matters not i n which the a proceeding opportunity a t o adduce p r o o f ( i n p e r s o n o r by c o u n s e l ) as t o t h e i n f e r e n c e s from the e v i d e n c e . ' 121 constitute So. 575, 2d 875, 578 F i o r e l l a v. S t a t e , 40 A l a . App. 878 (1960)." Ex p a r t e Anderson, and to flowing 587, 999 590, So. 2d ( A l a . 2008). A d d i t i o n a l l y , r e g a r d i n g t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f an a l l o c u t i o n , Ex p a r t e A n d e r s o n , 434 So. 2d 737 ( A l a . 1983), and t h e cases f o l l o w i n g i t h o l d t h a t when t h e l a c k o f an a l l o c u t i o n o r t h e waiver of required erroneous. Crim. App. a l l o c u t i o n i s r a i s e d on because See a sentence Davis 1999); v. State, Newton v. d i r e c t appeal without 747 State, So. 673 remand i s an allocution 2d 921, So. 2d 925 799, (Ala. 800-01 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; B u r k s v. S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 374, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) ; Duncan v. S t a t e , 587 So. 2d 1260, (Ala. C r i m . App. ( A l a . C r i m . App. C r i m . App. 1269 1988). 1991); State, 571 So. 382-83 2d 368, 1264 372 1 9 9 0 ) ; M a u l v. S t a t e , 531 So. 2d 35, 36 ( A l a . See ( A l a . C r i m . App. 34, 140 So. 180, C l i n e v. is 181 a l s o Ebens v. S t a t e , 518 So. 2d 1 9 8 6 ) ; O l i v e r v. S t a t e , 25 A l a . App. (1932) 1264, 34, (wherein the court noted t h a t "to 17 CR-08-0769 c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d j u d g m e n t [ , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t was a s k e d i f he h a d a n y t h i n g t o s a y why t h e s e n t e n c e o f l a w s h o u l d n o t be p r o n o u n c e d upon him] must a p p e a r i n t h e m i n u t e e n t r y o f the judgment"). We n o t e t h a t Court recognized the issue i n Shaw v . S t a t e , and r e i t e r a t e d t h a t of the lack supra, this on d i r e c t a p p e a l , when o f an a l l o c u t i o n o r a w a i v e r a l l o c u t i o n i s r a i s e d , t h e c a s e i s t o be remanded. o f an 949 So. 2d a t 187. R u l e 2 6 . 9 ( b ) ( 1 ) a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t i n p r o n o u n c i n g t h e sentence, the t r i a l opportunity t o make judge must a statement before imposing sentence." Rule 26 s t a t e regardless that " [ a ] f f o r d the defendant i n h i s o r h e r own an behalf The C o m m i t t e e Comments f o l l o w i n g a defendant i s entitled to allocution, o f t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e sentence imposed. 26.9, A l a . R . C r i m . P . , C o m m i t t e e Comments. See R u l e However, t h i s C o u r t has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d i n a p p e a l s f r o m t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., p e t i t i o n that " [ a ] c l a i m t h a t a d e f e n d a n t was not a f f o r d e d t o address the court before the the opportunity sentence i s imposed i s not a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l State, 729 949 So. 2d a t 187. 1006, See H o l l o w a y v . S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; Robey v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . 1024-25 claim." App. 18 1998) . As 971 So. 2d 950 So. 2d 1235 See a l s o D a v i s v . S t a t e , ( A l a . Crim. Shaw v . 720 So. 2d Justice Stuart CR-08-0769 s t a t e d i n h e r d i s s e n t i n Ex p a r t e Robey, 953 (Ala. So. 2d 363, 365 2006), "The law i n Alabama r e g a r d i n g a t r i a l court's p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over a c r i m i n a l d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v o l u t e d , and t h e d e f i n i t i o n of subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n , i.e., a trial c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o r e n d e r j u d g m e n t and t o impose sentence, is tortured with inaccuracy and confusion." 953 such So. 2d a t 365-66. as Seymour understanding and and next whether of have rein in certain trial collateral is procedural bars the provide "due process" proceedings proceedings allocution much also to use clarify the the term of a i s bad holding nonjurisdictional of Rule 32, guidance rights constitute m a t t e r s and t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h in done We i n v i t e t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t t o t a k e opportunity to question stages Robey to "jurisdictional." the R e c e n t A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t o p i n i o n s as or to the mandatory "jurisdictional" law: the l i n e of that the defect Ala.R.Crim.P., lack subject or the cases of an to the line of d i r e c t - a p p e a l cases a d d r e s s i n g unpreserved c h a l l e n g e s to the lack of allocution, holding that these c h a l l e n g e s are not j u r i s d i c t i o n a l but i n s t e a d are e x c e p t i o n s to the p r e s e r v a t i o n requirements this Court is ordinarily 19 subject to, thus CR-08-0769 providing a definitive conflicting answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by caselaw. With a l l the above-discussed p r i n c i p l e s we the conclude that because the record of law i n mind, shows no sentencing h e a r i n g o r any w a i v e r o f a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g , and a l l o c u t i o n o r a w a i v e r o f an a l l o c u t i o n , we shows no are compelled to r e v e r s e t h e s e n t e n c e and remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e t r i a l court for trial that judge court to shall resentence conduct a proper Banks. On remand t h e sentencing h e a r i n g i n which a p r e s e n t e n c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s c o n d u c t e d and a p r o p e r a l l o c u t i o n is provided. The t h i s Court showing trial c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o make a r e t u r n t o compliance w i t h these i n s t r u c t i o n s 49 d a y s f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h i s o p i n i o n . shall include a transcript of the copy of the presentence any, r e l i e d upon by t h e t r i a l r e t u r n t o remand s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g and a i n v e s t i g a t i o n or o t h e r documents, i f For the above-mentioned first-degree The within r o b b e r y i s due court i n imposing sentence. reasons, Banks's c o n v i c t i o n f o r t o be affirmed, h i s sentence r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a s e remanded f o r r e s e n t e n c i n g . 20 is CR-08-0769 AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED I N PART AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Welch and K e l l u m , J J . , concur. J., concur i n the r e s u l t . 21 W i s e , P . J . , a n d Windom,

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.