Ex parte Michael L. Jones (In re: State of Alabama v. Michael L. Jones)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/01/2010 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-09-1576 Ex p a r t e M i c h a e l L. Jones PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: S t a t e o f Alabama v . M i c h a e l L. Jones) Baldwin C i r c u i t Court (CC-98-1731) PER CURIAM. The p e t i t i o n e r , M i c h a e l L. J o n e s , f i l e d t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus r e q u e s t i n g t h a t we d i r e c t Judge R o b e r t E a r l Wilters t o set aside h i s order d e n y i n g Jones's m o t i o n t o be t r e a t e d as a " t e c h n i c a l " v i o l a t o r u n d e r t h e r e c e n t t o § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . Code 1975. amendment CR-09-1576 I n 1999, J o n e s was c o n v i c t e d o f r a p e , was y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t , and probation-revocation probation was was placed proceedings revoked, and he sentenced to on probation. were initiated. was ordered to remainder of h i s sentence i n a s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y . In 2004, Jones's serve the This Court a f f i r m e d t h e r e v o c a t i o n o f h i s p r o b a t i o n on a p p e a l , w i t h o u t opinion. See Jones v. State, (CR-04-0617, June 15 17, an 2005) (table). I n J u l y 2010, Jones f i l e d a motion i n the Baldwin Circuit C o u r t p u r s u a n t t o n e w l y amended § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . Code arguing that amendment and circuit he is should court denied petition a be technical violator resentenced. Jones's motion. On according J u l y 14, to the 2010, the Jones then f i l e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h t h i s this Court. S e c t i o n 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , as amended e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 30, provides: "(a) Any person c o n v i c t e d of a nonviolent o f f e n s e now s e r v i n g a p r i s o n sentence based on revocation of probation as a result of only technical violations shall be entitled to be r e s e n t e n c e d upon p e t i t i o n t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t . Such p e t i t i o n s h a l l be on a f o r m and f i l e d i n t h e manner p r e s c r i b e d by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e o f C o u r t s . P e t i t i o n s s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d authorized motions f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of sentence, assigned a u n i q u e i d e n t i f i e r by t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e o f 2 1975, 2010, CR-09-1576 Courts, fee. and s h a l l n o t r e q u i r e payment o f a filing "(b) The c o u r t s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o resentence t h e o f f e n d e r i n accordance w i t h t h e terms o f t h i s s e c t i o n , upon a s h o w i n g o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : "(1) completed months. The offender successfully t h e terms o f p r o b a t i o n f o r s i x " ( 2 ) P r o b a t i o n was t h e r e a f t e r r e v o k e d and t h e o f f e n d e r was s e n t e n c e d to the p e n i t e n t i a r y o n l y as a r e s u l t o f t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n s of probation. " ( 3 ) The o f f e n d e r h a s no d i s c i p l i n a r y i n f r a c t i o n s while s e r v i n g the sentence i n the p e n i t e n t i a r y . "(4) The o f f e n d e r h a s no p e n d i n g c h a r g e s o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a new o f f e n s e . " The question presented i n this case i s whether t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n u n d e r § 15-22-54.1, i s a p p e a l a b l e reviewable b y mandamus t o t h i s Court ori s petition. S e c t i o n 15-22-54.1, A l a . Code 1975, l i k e t h e amendment t o § 13A-5-9.1, A l a . Code 1975, g i v e s a l o w e r c o u r t t h e a u t h o r i t y to reopen a case after a case i s final. When d i s c u s s i n g w h e t h e r an o r d e r on a m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r a s e n t e n c e to § 13A-5-9.1 i s a p p e a l a b l e , pursuant we have s t a t e d : " [ I ] n K i r b y [ v . S t a t e , 899 So. 2d 968 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ] , when i t r e v e r s e d t h i s court's order dismissing K i r b y ' s a p p e a l , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t i m p l i e d 3 CR-09-1576 t h a t such orders are appealable. Further, i n Alabama Department of Mental Health & Mental R e t a r d a t i o n v. S t a t e , 873 So. 2d 1176, 1177-78 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , we n o t e d : " ' T h e r e i s no r i g h t t o a p p e a l g r a n t e d i n t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901. T h i s Court's appellate jurisdiction is p r e s c r i b e d i n § 12-3-9, A l a . C o d e 1975, which s t a t e s : "'"The Court of Criminal Appeals shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction of a l l misdemeanors, including the violation of town and city o r d i n a n c e s , h a b e a s c o r p u s and a l l felonies, including a l l post conviction writs in criminal cases." "'Amend. No. 328, § 6 . 0 3 ( a ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901, a l s o s t a t e s t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h a l l "exercise" i t s appellate jurisdiction "under s u c h t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s as s h a l l be p r o v i d e d by l a w and by r u l e s o f t h e Supreme C o u r t . " "'As we r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n D i x o n v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 859 So. 2d 462, 463 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) : "'"'The r i g h t o f a p p e a l i s w h o l l y s t a t u t o r y and i s a u t h o r i z e d i n c r i m i n a l cases from a judgment o f c o n v i c t i o n . ' M c C r a y v. S t a t e , 46 A l a . App. 588, 589, 246 So. 2d 475, 476 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 7 1 ) . 'Appeals l i e o n l y from judgments o f c o n v i c t i o n , and t h e n o n l y on t h o s e c o u n t s upon w h i c h t h e r e i s a f i n d i n g o f g u i l t . ' T h o r n t o n v. 4 CR-09-1576 State, 390 So. 2d 1093, 1096 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980). 'An a p p e a l c a n n o t be t a k e n f r o m an o r d e r subsequent t o the judgment of c o n v i c t i o n u n l e s s a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . ' H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 44 A l a . App. 632, 632, 218 So. 2d 285, 286 ( 1 9 6 9 ) . " ' " ( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . ) Once a c o n v i c t i o n has b e e n o b t a i n e d and a corresponding sentence has been i m p o s e d , t h e c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t may appeal the c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e t o t h i s c o u r t . As we e x p l a i n i n P a r t I o f t h i s o p i n i o n , a § 13A-5-9.1 m o t i o n i n v o l v e s r e o p e n i n g an e x i s t i n g c a s e , i n w h i c h t h e r e has b e e n a c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e , f o r p o s s i b l e resentencing. Logically, t h e n , any order either g r a n t i n g or denying a request f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a s e n t e n c e w o u l d be a p p e a l a b l e . " Prestwood v. S t a t e , 915 So. 2d 580, 582-83 ( A l a . Crim. App. I n amending § 15¬ 2005). The 22-54.1 same l o g i c a p p l i e s i n t h i s to provide authority to f i l e technical convicted probation violators violator, jurisdiction case. on a motion the the Logically, case. t o be t r e a t e d and legislature court to because reopen we with sentenced specifically be treated as appealable to t h i s a technical Court. 5 as a conferred a probation-revocation routinely review probation- revocation proceedings, a r u l i n g denying a defendant's to the violator would motion likewise be CR-09-1576 A p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i l l following p r e r e q u i s i t e s are e s t a b l i s h e d : right to the r e l i e f sought; issue only i f the (1) a c l e a r (2) an i m p e r a t i v e legal d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) no adequate jurisdiction 679 remedy law; and of the reviewing So. 2d 275 establish at (4) t h e p r o p e r l y court. See S t a t e v. W i l l i a m s , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 6 ) . Jones has f a i l e d t o the p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r the issuance mandamus b e c a u s e he h a s an a d e q u a t e PETITION Wise, of a w r i t of remedy a t l a w . p a r t e Dunn, 8 So. 3d 935, 937 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . p e t i t i o n i s due t o be invoked See Ex Accordingly, this denied. DENIED. P . J . , and Welch, Windom, concur. 6 Kellum, and Main, J J . ,

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.