Carl Donnell Moore, alias v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 12/17/2010 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-0071 Carl Donnell Moore v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WELCH, Court Judge. Carl controlled Code from T u s c a l o o s a C i r c u i t (CC-05-1013) Donnell Moore substance, was c o n v i c t e d a violation 1 9 7 5 , a n d was c o n v i c t e d substance, having of trafficking i n a o f § 13A-12-231(2), A l a . of d i s t r i b u t i n g a controlled s o l d a c o n t r o l l e d substance w i t h i n a three- CR-09-0071 mile §§ radius of a school 13A-12-211, sale radius of sentenced ordered with of a a controlled Moore to to and 30 V i c t i m s Compensation Fund. a new trial The by with record Michael J. sentencing, date, appeal. notice produce file Upton, James On with the trial trial assessment in oral accordance of $100 to the to Crime an u n t i m e l y m o t i o n f o r appeal that, his court The $2,000 M o o r e was and court an Act, This three-mile followed. represented on October notice of at 6, trial 2009, appeal. On at that c o u r t a l l o w e d U p t o n t o w i t h d r a w as c o u n s e l E. Gentry November the a of Moore f i l e d that filed aside an a s s e s s m e n t o f $ 5 0 Court. reflects Moore the t r i a l appointed this 1975. within project, assessment t h e F o r e n s i c T r u s t F u n d , and Code court set imprisonment. D r u g Demand R e d u c t i o n 18, trial a transcript c o n t a i n i n g the to serve 2009, the court that of Moore's trial as Moore's court she trial transcript 2 of For Moore's c o n v i c t i o n based housing an Ala. the t r i a l substance years' pay project, violations 13A-12-270, conviction. school Moore the and remand by t h i s C o u r t , Moore's t r a f f i c k i n g the a housing 13A-12-250, However, a f t e r on and reporter would because was counsel be the corrupted. filed unable and on a to electronic Although CR-09-0071 the record does proceeding trial court, trial the of record December 15, this serve matter as however, brief transcript motions does not Upton Gentry signed appeal with fees January trial entitled n o t be to 15, with a available remanded the 10(d), evidence On order of Moore's paper contain sentencing filings with a transcript this this new counsel as of Court, trial c a s e and A l a . R. presented J u l y 12, on for appeal. return App. at 2010, to ordered P., in Court. Moore appointed addition of the the as an because and Moore's Gentry counsel. court a trial F e b r u a r y 16, t h a t the t r i a l and in argued the prepare a to Gentry; untimely he Upton only appellate filed hearing to record Further, i n which On conducted a and counsel for serving 2010, court Gentry stenograph machine m a l f u n c t i o n e d Rule and trial and appellate attorney On new 2009, the with Moore's only on requests a copies a proceedings. On on and contain motion that he for is reporter's transcript would 2010, Court this court comply w i t h statement of the trial. the trial court submitted the following remand: "The C o u r t h a s c o n d u c t e d s e v e r a l h e a r i n g s i n an e f f o r t t o o b t a i n an a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t as t h e r e c o r d 3 CR-09-0071 on A p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( e ) of the Alabama Rules of A p p e l l a t e Procedure. As noted by the submissions of the p a r t i e s , an a g r e e d statement c o u l d n o t be a c h i e v e d . Consequently, the Court m a k e s t h i s r e t u r n on r e m a n d t o t h e A l a b a m a C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s as f o l l o w s : "1. [ M o o r e ] was c o n v i c t e d of S a l e of a C o n t r o l l e d Substance w i t h i n a 3 mile radius of a s c h o o l and w i t h i n a 3 m i l e r a d i u s o f a p u b l i c h o u s i n g p r o j e c t under Count I I I of the Indictment "2. After r e v i e w i n g the (1) State's Submission of Proposed R e c o n s t r u c t i o n of T r a n s c r i p t w h i c h was f i l e d b y t h e S t a t e on April 6, 2 0 1 0 , and i s a t t a c h e d t o this order, (2) the Defense Counsel's Summary/reconstruction of the available trial t r a n s c r i p t and [ M o o r e ' s ] o b j e c t i o n f i l e d on M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , a n d r e a f f i r m e d on May 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 , w h i c h a r e a t t a c h e d t o t h i s order, (3) the exhibits admitted into e v i d e n c e w h i c h c o n s i s t e d o f 16 exhibits including photographs, a scale, finger print report, audio cassette and video c a s s e t t e , (4) the l i m i t e d notes which the Court could locate a f t e r a lengthy search, (5) t h i s Court's r e c o l l e c t i o n of the t r i a l t e s t i m o n y and ( 6 ) t h e C o u r t f i l e , t h e C o u r t adopts the S t a t e ' s submission of proposed Reconstruction of Transcript which is a t t a c h e d t o t h i s o r d e r as t h e R e c o r d on Appeal w i t h the f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n s : "a. The Court instructed the Jury that the crime of Possession of Controlled Substance can be jointly c o m m i t t e d a n d g u i l t o f an a c c u s e d d o e s n o t d e p e n d on o w n e r s h i p o f the c o n t r o l l e d substance. 4 CR-09-0071 "b. The defense noted i n i t s Summary/Reconstruction of the unavailable Trial Transcript concerning Jury Instruction that t h i s C o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e J u r y on two a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s n o t l i s t e d i n Ex p a r t e J . C . , 882 So. 2 d 274 (Ala. 2003). The two a d d i t i o n a l factors which the Court instructed the Jury were (1) E v i d e n c e o f p r e v i o u s u s e a n d (2) evidence that showed the Defendant's proximity to the contraband. "3. With the a d d i t i o n s n o t e d above, the Court finds that there i s a sufficient t r a n s c r i p t presented f o r A p p e l l a t e Review on the Appeal of the Sale of Cocaine conviction under Count I I I of the Indictment. The Court notes that in [Moore's] submission, there are no c r i t i c i s m s d i r e c t e d to the s a l e case which i n v o l v e d the purchase of c o c a i n e by the c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t , ... who was w e a r i n g an a u d i o t r a n s m i s s i o n d e v i c e . "4. The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e t r a n s c r i p t a d o p t e d b y t h e C o u r t as t o t h e T r a f f i c k i n g i n Cocaine c o n v i c t i o n under Count I V of the I n d i c t m e n t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t because i t l a c k s d e t a i l r e g a r d i n g t h e e v i d e n c e and a r g u m e n t s on the Motion to Suppress the Cocaine s e i z e d f r o m t h e r e s i d e n c e o f [ S . N . ] and also the surrounding circumstances r e g a r d i n g the C o n s t r u c t i v e P o s s e s s i o n of Cocaine, which formed the b a s i s of the t r a f f i c k i n g charge. For these reasons, t h i s Court finds that [Moore] i s e n t i t l e d t o a new t r i a l on t h e T r a f f i c k i n g C h a r g e c o n t a i n e d i n Count I V of the i n d i c t m e n t . 5 CR-09-0071 A c c o r d i n g l y the T r a f f i c k i n g c o n v i c t i o n , i s set aside f o r l a c k of a t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t . " (Return to On trial Remand appeal, 1-3.) Moore because the the not that is in appeal. represented reconstructed purposes he transcript, trial unavailable for his he was argues on record Moore argues t h a t the its Specifically, appeal of his appeal. entitled by h i s t r i a l is "wholly new entirety, is argues counsel at 6.) that and that for inadequate" (Moore's b r i e f , the In addition, c o u r t was without jurisdiction as appellate counsel on 2009, b e c a u s e more t h a n 30 days had his notice October to concede appoint Upton to serve of appeal on the trial appellate counsel was void. the State that and that that he that trial a Moore to argues this fact should Initially, jurisdiction counsel the t r i a l to because receive we 2009. 6, court's s i n c e Moore The appointment (State's b r i e f , a new appoint trial. that the Upton did court extending State of a t 11.) to not serve i n Moore's file the t r i a l 6 court as appears was Moore's a postjudgment as However, appeal argument (State's b r i e f , trial 15, filed Upton weigh a g a i n s t Moore i n h i s note Moore expired Upton " p a r t i c i p a t e d " should December to at 10.) without appellate motion court's j u r i s d i c t i o n . in See CR-09-0071 Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , "a trial after court an retains has new trial Rule i s pronounced. include 4(b)(1), appointed as rule no App. P. in this is that the Therefore, 2d o f one case [(citations and shall See be deemed o f the motion solely ( A l a . 1987), by that 7 this motion."); being court lost and W i l l i a m s v. be new sentence and State, general i n two quotations of for a to Upton's 2007)("The cannot after rule courts at omitted)]). 546 appeal purposes days A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n Ex p a r t e G o d b o l t , 991 the for a was on for motion circuit conviction App. for a o f the prior the Court. motion Moore represented So. Thus, case court (30) o f the d e n i a l a trial of a motion the d e n i a l (Ala. Crim. jurisdiction same t i m e . " The 617 ("A of appeal counsel, vested P. thirty a denial an a p p e a l f r o m jurisdiction 615, than notice Moore's 2d Crim. over the a timely f i l e d later over So. on After appellate (Ala. 1994)(holding that jurisdiction A l a . R. jurisdiction 982 no o f the date A l a . R. as 199 t a k e n " ; however, the p r e v i o u s l y f i l e d shall Rule to filed have been f i l e d and 198, has 24.1(b), m u s t be sentence 2d been jurisdiction trial); to So. ordinarily appeal new trial, 652 appeal, Gentry. CR-09-0071 " [ t ] h e F i f t h C i r c u i t Court o f Appeals recognized i n t h e s e c a s e s t h a t t h e r e a r e t i m e s when reversible e r r o r s h o u l d b e p r e s u m e d when a c o u r t r e p o r t e r f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e C o u r t R e p o r t e r A c t , 28 U.S.C.A. § 753(b), b y o m i t t i n g some p o r t i o n o f t h e t r i a l proceedings. However, t h a t c o u r t has n o t chosen t o a d o p t a p e r se r u l e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l f o r a n y and all omissions. E r r o r i s presumed only i f the d e f e n d a n t i s r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l b y c o u n s e l o t h e r than the a t t o r n e y at t r i a l . The F i f t h C i r c u i t r u l e is well expressed i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S e l v a , 559 F.2d 1303 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) : "'While both t h e [ C o u r t R e p o r t e r A c t ] and [ H a r d y v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 375 U.S. 2 7 7 , 84 S . C t . 4 2 4 , 11 L . E d . 2 d 331 ( 1 9 6 4 ) ] i n s u r e to a defendant the r i g h t to a complete record on appeal, there has been c o n s i d e r a b l e l i t i g a t i o n i n t h i s court over the e f f e c t of a f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the Act. Two r u l e s h a v e e v o l v e d . The f i r s t holds t h a t f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h the A c t i s n o t e r r o r p e r se and w i l l n o t work a reversal absent a specific showing of p r e j u d i c e - i . e . , a p p e l l a n t m u s t show t h a t f a i l u r e t o r e c o r d and p r e s e r v e t h e s p e c i f i c p o r t i o n of the t r i a l proceedings v i s i t s a hardship upon him and p r e j u d i c e s h i s appeal. U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A l f o n s o , 552 F . 2 d 605 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . L o n g , 419 F . 2 d 91 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) ; A d d i s o n v . United States, 317 F . 2 d 808 (5th C i r . 19 6 3 ) ; S t r a u s s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 3 1 1 F . 2 d 926 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 6 3 ) . The g o v e r n m e n t u r g e s upon us t h i s body o f l a w as c o n t r o l l i n g o u r decision here. We disagree. An e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e second body o f case law reveals that a different rule obtains i n cases involving new c o u n s e l on appeal. When, a s h e r e , a criminal defendant i s r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l b y c o u n s e l o t h e r t h a n the a t t o r n e y at t r i a l , the absence of a 8 CR-09-0071 s u b s t a n t i a l and s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d , e v e n a b s e n t any s h o w i n g o f s p e c i f i c prejudice or error, is sufficient to mandate reversal. See United States v. Gregory, 472 F.2d 484 (5th C i r . 1973) ( d i c t a ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v. G a r c i a - B o n i f a s c i o , 443 F . 2 d 914 (5th C i r . 1 9 7 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . R o s a , 434 F . 2 d 964 (5th C i r . 1970); U n i t e d S t a t e s v. A t i l u s , 425 F . 2 d 816 ( 5 t h C i r . 1970); S t e p h e n s v. United S t a t e s , 289 F.2d 308 (5th C i r . 1961). The wisdom of this rule is a p p a r e n t . When a d e f e n d a n t i s represented on a p p e a l b y t h e same a t t o r n e y who d e f e n d e d him at trial, the court may properly r e q u i r e counsel to a r t i c u l a t e the p r e j u d i c e t h a t may h a v e r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e f a i l u r e t o record a portion of the proceedings. Indeed, counsel's o b l i g a t i o n to the c o u r t a l o n e w o u l d seem t o c o m p e l h i m t o i n i t i a t e such d i s c l o s u r e . The a t t o r n e y , h a v i n g b e e n p r e s e n t a t t r i a l , s h o u l d be e x p e c t e d t o be aware o f any e r r o r s o r i m p r o p r i e t i e s w h i c h may h a v e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e proceedings not recorded. But when a defendant i s represented on appeal by counsel not i n v o l v e d at trial, counsel cannot reasonably be expected to show s p e c i f i c p r e j u d i c e . To be s u r e , t h e r e may be some i n s t a n c e s w h e r e i t c a n r e a d i l y be determined from the b a l a n c e of the r e c o r d w h e t h e r an e r r o r h a s b e e n made d u r i n g t h e u n t r a n s c r i b e d p o r t i o n of the p r o c e e d i n g s . Often, however, even the most careful c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the a v a i l a b l e transcript will not permit us to d i s c e r n whether reversible error occurred while the p r o c e e d i n g s were not b e i n g r e c o r d e d . In such a case, t o r e q u i r e new counsel to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r e g u l a r i t i e s t h a t may h a v e taken place would render illusory an a p p e l l a n t ' s r i g h t to n o t i c e p l a i n e r r o r s or 9 CR-09-0071 d e f e c t s , H a r d y , 375 U.S. a t 280, 84 424, a n d r e n d e r m e r e l y t e c h n i c a l h i s to appeal." 546 So. 2d at 996-97 Further, App. in 2001), the sentencing objected hearing. who had Godbolt, for a new Green court hearing, to (emphasis v. added). State, 796 reporter So. 2d failed to the prosecutor, In Green, a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l represented Court trial. 438 (Ala. In the appellant Green, this defendant a not the same trial, and pursuant the trial case Court to post-trial counsel stated, " I n the present case, s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n s of the t r i a l r e c o r d have been o m i t t e d . The r e c o r d d o e s not i n c l u d e the sentencing hearing, nor does i t c o n t a i n the h e a r i n g i n v o l v i n g the t r u s t w o r t h i n e s s of the w i t n e s s e s a l l u d e d to during t r i a l . Further, pages are m i s s i n g from both the t r a n s c r i p t of the p r e t r i a l h e a r i n g h e l d on M a r c h 2 9 , 1999, and the trial transcript. A f t e r a c a r e f u l and extensive review of the r e c o r d , t h i s Court cannot conclude t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t has not b e e n p r e j u d i c e d by the m i s s i n g p o r t i o n s of the r e c o r d . Given the trial court's f i n d i n g t h a t the o m i t t e d p o r t i o n s of the r e c o r d e n t i t l e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t o a new trial, the a p p e l l a n t ' s vigorous attempts to obtain a complete r e c o r d on a p p e a l , a n d t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s m i s s i n g from the r e c o r d , r e v e r s a l i s r e q u i r e d under the unique circumstances of t h i s case. Accordingly, the appellant's conviction i s reversed, and this c a s e i s r e m a n d e d t o t h e H a l e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r a new trial." 10 the and was at remanded Green's Crim. transcribe a c l o s i n g argument i n which the r e m a r k s made b y this S.Ct. right to court CR-09-0071 Green v. S t a t e , 796 S o . 2 d 4 3 8 , 440 ( A l a .Crim. H e r e , M o o r e was n o t r e p r e s e n t e d the same counsel. "participated" record what Though i n Moore's assistance, appellate counsel. this Court was requesting appeal, i f submitted any, as Crim. of the t r i a l on a p p e a l , " App. produce found return on who no if Finally, Moore reversal case. has Although further that without a trial or not Accordingly, Moore's filed with attorney Further, i t i s well settled this the court with a complete on Moore's Moreover, the p a r t i e s transcript, suffered part could the t r i a l court could agree we not A l a . R. cannot prejudice. under the unique Moore's that i t 791 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 418 ( A l a . effort record. t o remand i s required the i s w h o l l y u n a v a i l a b l e as t h e r e s u l t o f a trial has by Upton from i s the only upon a s t a t e m e n t o f f a c t s p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 1 0 ( d ) , P. that provided counsel. Gamble v. S t a t e , 2000), possibly Upton appellate the appellant's duty to provide record argues i t i s unclear by G e n t r y , a technical malfunction. "is State 2001). a n d on a p p e a l As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e b r i e f payment transcript the at t r i a l App. determine Therefore, of this conviction for distribution of a 11 circumstances App. CR-09-0071 c o n t r o l l e d substance the Tuscaloosa Circuit R E V E R S E D AND Wise, i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s Court f o r a new case i s remanded t o trial. REMANDED. P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , 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.