David Christopher Maye 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 be 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-09-1547 D a v i d C h r i s t o p h e r Maye v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, The circuit from B a l d w i n C i r c u i t (CC-06-1086.71) Court Judge. appellant, court's David Christopher revocation of Maye, appeals h i s probation. i n d i c a t e s t h a t Maye w a s c o n v i c t e d o f t h e u n l a w f u l of a c o n t r o l l e d substance, a violation from t h e The record distribution of § 13A-12-211, Ala. CR-09-1547 Code 1975. The record sentence; however, sentenced to supervised probation While conditions and on the of terms and June and failing fees. While Maye was was alleged in conditions screens October of and by his of to his revocation The that and Maye's Maye was placed was notice on on and the by 2009, Maye and probation by to appear J u n e 2, addition had violated failing a violated failing to in court do pay officer, to arrested the 2009 treatment failing 2010, to to in April court-referral officer, and arrested, he complete b o n d , Maye was in terms that to appear i n court with out the probation enter that, failing of subsequently given v i o l a t i o n s . On Maye indicate violated to r e p o r t to h i s p r o b a t i o n notified hearing Maye meet alleged probation court his to does details 2008. moneys, f a i l i n g failing contain imprisonment 2 0 0 9 , he failing supervision for in conditions 2009, program, years' his probation. 7, not record probation, October court-ordered the eight on does the pay again circuit violations the terms submit to i n J a n u a r y 2010 and drug for proceedings. circuit court on J u n e 3 0 , 2010. conducted a probation-revocation At the p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n 2 hearing, CR-09-1547 Maye admitted probation. which he to v i o l a t i n g Specifically, received ordered that sentence. from the c i r c u i t Maye serve I n i t s order, and conditions of h i s May a d m i t t e d t o t h e v i o l a t i o n s notice Maye's a d m i s s i o n , the terms the c i r c u i t court the court. as t o Based revoked h i s probation balance the c i r c u i t of court his eight specifically on and year stated t h a t Maye was n o t a " t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t o r , " f o r p u r p o s e s o f § 5 22-54, A l a . Code 1975. T h i s appeal Maye's a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l compliance with Anders Counsel stated to a viable find that after caselaw, that This consideration by t h i s no v i a b l e an A n d e r s 386 in substantial U.S. the record 738 (1967). i n an attempt However, c o u n s e l the applicable issues order on concluded s t a t u t e s , and appeal. on S e p t e m b e r 2 3 , 2 0 1 0 . any a d d i t i o n a l p o i n t s C o u r t . We h a v e a l s o or issues f o r reviewed the c a s e a n d h a v e f o u n d no e r r o r h a r m f u l t o M a y e ' s The d i s s e n t , before on a p p e a l . to f i l e a brief California, the record, issued Maye h a s f a i l e d in this issue existed court has f i l e d he h a d r e v i e w e d reviewing there v. followed. i n effect, rights. appears t o reweigh the evidence the c i r c u i t court, suggesting mero motu a d d r e s s record t h a t t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d ex t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f § 15-22-54, A l a . Code 3 CR-09-1547 1975, as amended e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 3 0 , 2010, t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r facts of t h i s case. However, Rule 45B, A l a . R. App. P., states: " I n a l l cases appealed t o the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , e x c e p t t h o s e i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y has been imposed, t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s s h a l l consider only questions or issues presented i n b r i e f s on a p p e a l . " Our Supreme Court approved Rule 45B, A l a . R. App. P. ( e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1 9 8 2 ) , w h i c h a b o l i s h e d t h e " s e a r c h t h e r e c o r d r u l e " s e t o u t i n § 12-22-240, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d i n g t h a t t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s must c o n s i d e r a l l q u e s t i o n s a p p a r e n t on t h e r e c o r d a n d r e s e r v e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . See H o p p i n s v. S t a t e , 451 So. 2d 365, 365 ( A l a . 1983). Rule 45B e f f e c t i v e l y eliminates t h i s Court's o b l i g a t i o n to search the r e c o r d f o r p l a i n e r r o r i n c a s e s i n w h i c h t h e d e a t h p e n a l t y was not imposed. The s u g g e s t i o n i n t h e d i s s e n t t h a t t h i s Court a d d r e s s an i s s u e n o t r a i s e d b y Maye on a p p e a l o v e r l o o k s R u l e 45B. To the extent the dissent attempts to couch the a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e T e c h n i c a l V i o l a t o r A c t as a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l issue, i t would appear to run a f o u l r e c e n t d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e C o l l i n s , 24, 2 0 1 0 ] ___ So. 3d ___ o f t h e Supreme [Ms. ( A l a . 2010), 4 Court's 1091310, November i n which t h e Supreme CR-09-1547 Court reversed determination d e f e c t not Maye a of this Court by without either p a r t y on options. If at appeal. Ala. Code reconsideration technical Based on 1975, of his he may its a event, Maye s e t o u t i n § 15-22¬ file a based sentence I n any some f u t u r e p o i n t b e l i e v e s t h a t he meets t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s 54.1, based t h a t t h i s Court i m p e r m i s s i b l y took n o t i c e of raised i s not judgment petition on his seeking status as a v i o l a t o r u n d e r §15-22-54(d)(1)f. on the foregoing, the judgement of the circuit court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Windom, J . , c o n c u r s . Wise, P.J., concurs i n the r e s u l t . Welch, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , w i t h o p i n i o n . Main, J . , dissents, with opinion. WELCH, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n t h e I agree w i t h the Court's c o u r t ' s r e v o c a t i o n of David t o impose the b a l a n c e result. d e c i s i o n to a f f i r m circuit C h r i s t o p h e r Maye's p r o b a t i o n of h i s e i g h t - y e a r sentence. d i s a g r e e w i t h the Court's a n a l y s i s . concur i n o n l y the the Therefore, I However, I respectfully result. Section 15-22-54(d)(1)f, A l a . Code 1975, 5 and provides: CR-09-1547 " f . I f the p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n i s a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n , d e f i n e d as a v i o l a t i o n o f a c o n d i t i o n o f probation other than the commission of a new o f f e n s e , an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r may be r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a t e r m o f n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , w h i c h may include participation in the restart program, LIFETech program, or a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t o r program or, i f no s p a c e i s a v a i l a b l e i n a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i n t h e county j a i l . " ( 2 ) a . An e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r s u b j e c t t o paragraph f. of subdivision (1) is a nonviolent felon serving a probationary s e n t e n c e who has v i o l a t e d a c o n d i t i o n o r c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n o t h e r t h a n by t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e and who has performed the c o n d i t i o n s of probation, i n c l u d i n g r e m a i n i n g c u r r e n t on payment o f court ordered money, f o r a consecutive six-month p e r i o d . " The r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t on O c t o b e r 7, c o u r t i s s u e d an o r d e r and Commitment t o B a l d w i n circuit pay" entitled: court found J u n e 2, entitled: Baldwin In that t h a t " [ M a y e ] owes $2,715.35 2010, the "Probation County J a i l . " (C. circuit Violation Notice order the failure to 4.) court Notice i s s u e d another and (C. 6.) 6 pd. order Commitment In t h a t o r d e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t t h a t " [ M a y e ] owes $ 2 , 7 7 7 . 3 5 , has among o t h e r v i o l a t i o n s . circuit "Probation Violation County J a i l . " among o t h e r v i o l a t i o n s . On 2009, t h e 200.00, f a i l u r e to to found pay" CR-09-1547 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 h e l d on J u n e 30, 2010, Maye a d m i t t e d his t h a t he h a d v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f probation, including the f a i l u r e t o pay A f t e r that admission, the c i r c u i t court court-ordered monies. stated: " A l l r i g h t . Mr. Maye, I'm g o i n g t o o r d e r t h a t y o u serve your eight-year sentence i n the p e n i t e n t i a r y . You a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t o r . A n d no measure s h o r t o f c o n f i n e m e n t w i l l a v o i d d e p r e c i a t i n g the s e r i o u s n e s s o f the v i o l a t i o n . " (R. 7.);(emphasis The record, affirmatively determined supplied.) as shows that Maye reflected that was the not described i n § 15-22-54(d)(1)f in the circuit an above court "eligible quotes, correctly offender" as a n d 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975, b e c a u s e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e h e a r i n g Maye h a d n o t " p e r f o r m e d t h e conditions of probation, payment o f c o u r t ordered including remaining current money, f o r a c o n s e c u t i v e on six-month period." Therefore, ruling. the record For that reason, supports I would 7 the affirm. circuit court's CR-09-1547 MAIN, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I the respectfully dissent revocation from t h e main o p i n i o n of David Christopher Maye's p r o b a t i o n imposition of the balance of h i s eight-year This c a s e was s u b m i t t e d recognized Appellate that he requested Maye. pro that i n Anders counsel found v. to this no viable to withdraw issues 386 to U.S. raise from h i s appointed has r e v i e w e d on technical appeal and of to f i l e The o p i n i o n i n d i c a t e s the record and found no error rights. framework f o r t h e s e t t i n g of a p r o b a t i o n a r y thereof, Legislature (1967). representation S e c t i o n 15-22-54, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s revocation 738 of the opportunity se i s s u e s f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w . h a r m f u l t o Maye's sentence. a b r i e f t o t h i s Court i n d i c a t i n g Maye d i d n o t a v a i l h i m s e l f the Court and t h e Court by the procedure California, submitted affirming to limit the s t a t u t o r y period, and t h e a n d was r e c e n t l y amended b y t h e A l a b a m a i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n the p e n i t e n t i a r y f o r v i o l a t i o n s of probation. Section 15-22-54(d), as amended e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 30, 2010, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(1) I f the defendant v i o l a t e s a c o n d i t i o n o f probation or suspension of execution of sentence, t h e c o u r t , a f t e r a h e a r i n g , may i m p l e m e n t one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s : 8 CR-09-1547 and "a. Continue the e x i s t i n g probation suspension of execution of sentence. "b. I s s u e a f o r m a l o r i n f o r m a l w a r n i n g to the probationer that f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n s may, s u b j e c t t o p a r a g r a p h f . , r e s u l t i n revocation of probation or suspension of execution of sentence. "c. Conduct a f o r m a l or informal conference with the probationer to reemphasize the n e c e s s i t y of compliance with the conditions of probation. "d. Modify the c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n or suspension of execution of sentence, w h i c h c o n d i t i o n s may i n c l u d e t h e a d d i t i o n of s h o r t p e r i o d s of confinement. "e. I f t h e v i o l a t i o n of p r o b a t i o n i s t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e , r e v o k e t h e probation or suspension of execution of sentence. I f the court revokes p r o b a t i o n , it may, after a hearing, impose t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t was s u s p e n d e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g o r any l e s s e r sentence. " f . I f the probation v i o l a t i o n i s a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n , d e f i n e d as a v i o l a t i o n of a c o n d i t i o n of p r o b a t i o n other than the c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e , an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r may be r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a t e r m o f n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n a Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , which may i n c l u d e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e r e s t a r t program, LIFETech program, or a t e c h n i c a l violator program o r , i f no s p a c e i s a v a i l a b l e i n a Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i n t h e county j a i l . 9 CR-09-1547 " ( 2 ) a . An e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r s u b j e c t t o p a r a g r a p h f . o f s u b d i v i s i o n (1) i s a n o n v i o l e n t f e l o n s e r v i n g a p r o b a t i o n a r y s e n t e n c e who has v i o l a t e d a c o n d i t i o n or c o n d i t i o n s of probation other than by t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e and who has p e r f o r m e d the c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g remaining c u r r e n t on payment o f c o u r t o r d e r e d money, f o r a consecutive six-month p e r i o d . "b. Technical violations of c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e o p t i o n s p r o v i d e d i n p a r a g r a p h s a., b., c., d., and f . o f s u b d i v i s i o n ( 1 ) ; p r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t may a l s o c o n t i n u e t h e e x i s t i n g p r o b a t i o n and s u s p e n s i o n o f e x e c u t i o n of sentence w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l c o n d i t i o n t h a t the p r o b a t i o n e r does any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : "1. Participates c o r r e c t i o n s program. "2. P a r t i c i p a t e s r e l e a s e program. in in a a community county work "3. P e r f o r m s community s e r v i c e . "4. Undergoes supervision. intensive probation "5. P a r t i c i p a t e s i n a r e s i d e n t i a l o r outpatient drug or alcohol treatment program. "6. P a r t i c i p a t e s and c o m p l e t e s a L i f e S k i l l s I n f l u e n c e d b y Freedom and E d u c a t i o n Tech ( L I F E T e c h ) r e s i d e n t i a l p r o g r a m . " (Emphasis In added.) this case, Maye's probation-revocation c o n d u c t e d on J u n e 30, 2010, a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 hearing was two months a f t e r t h e CR-09-1547 effective d a t e o f t h e amendment. Maye's p r o b a t i o n a n d o r d e r e d eight-year failed sentence t o appear court-ordered based i n court The c i r c u i t court revoked t h a t he s e r v e t h e b a l a n c e on Maye's a d m i s s i o n three moneys, h a d f a i l e d times, of h i s that he h a d had f a i l e d t o pay to report to h i s probation o f f i c e r and c o u r t r e f e r r a l o f f i c e r , had f a i l e d t o e n t e r and t o complete treatment programs, and screens. The c i r c u i t c o u r t was aware o f t h e r e c e n t to t h e s t a t u t e , because the c i r c u i t finding, order both revoking violator." orally failed 7.) that to do drug amendment c o u r t a l s o made t h e b a r e at the revocation probation, (C. 2 ; R. had Maye However, hearing i s not a I find and i n i t s "technical no b a s i s i n the record f o r the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Maye i s n o t a technical None violator. of the grounds f o r revocation contained i n t h e r e c o r d a r e b a s e d on t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new offense. F u r t h e r , t h e r e c o r d does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t Maye i s a violent f e l o n o r t h a t he f a i l e d t o p e r f o r m " t h e c o n d i t i o n s of h i s p r o b a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g remaining c u r r e n t on t h e payment o f c o u r t o r d e r e d money, f o r a c o n s e c u t i v e six-month p e r i o d . " 1 The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t Maye's p r o b a t i o n o r d e r was d a t e d A u g u s t 25, 2008, a n d t h a t h i s u n d e r l y i n g c o n v i c t i o n was f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c o n t r o l l e d substance. A probation1 11 CR-09-1547 I recognize before the circuit opportunity in the the pro discusses, eliminated, search court to f i l e main o p i n i o n imposed, t h a t Maye d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s q u e s t i o n , cases former record or b e f o r e se issues. Rule in 45B, which statutory and this 45B, cases, to my death requirement consider knowledge, a l l issued of i t s o b l i g a t i o n to review penalty that was this apparent Court, an the effectively not Court on However, n o t h i n g relieves this in the in Anders the r e c o r d f o r p o t e n t i a l l y m e r i t o r i o u s i s s u e s t h a t were p r e s e r v e d for aware t h a t , as Ala.R.App.P., r e c o r d and r e s e r v e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . Rule C o u r t when g i v e n I am the either f o r a p p e l l a t e review or d e f e c t s t h a t are not s u b j e c t t o the r u l e s of p r e s e r v a t i o n . v i o l a t i o n n o t i c e and commitment t o j a i l d a t e d O c t o b e r 7, 2009, contains a l l e g a t i o n s regarding alleged v i o l a t i o n s occurring i n November 2008 and December 2008, b u t t h o s e d a t e s a r e m a r k e d out. (C. 4.) Those e a r l i e r d a t e s do n o t a p p e a r on a l a t e r p r o b a t i o n - v i o l a t i o n n o t i c e and commitment t o j a i l d a t e d J u n e 2, 2010. (C. 6.) Nor were t h o s e e a r l i e r d a t e s m e n t i o n e d a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g o r r e l i e d on by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t as a basis for revoking Maye's p r o b a t i o n . Another document i n d i c a t e s t h a t Maye had an a p p e a r a n c e d a t e o f J a n u a r y 27, 2009, f o r p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s , b u t t h a t d a t e a p p e a r s t o be a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r , b e c a u s e o t h e r d a t e s on t h a t document r e f e r t o Maye's h a v i n g b e e n a r r e s t e d on O c t o b e r 2, 2009, and r e l e a s e d on November 3, 2009, and t h e document as h a v i n g b e e n f i l e d on November 3, 2009 (C. 5 ) ; a d d i t i o n a l l y , a number o f o t h e r documents i n t h e r e c o r d , and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t a t t h e r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , r e f e r t o Maye's h a v i n g f a i l e d t o a p p e a r i n c o u r t on J a n u a r y 27, 2010, r a t h e r t h a n 2009. 12 CR-09-1547 Here, i f Maye i s an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r and h i s r e v o c a t i o n was b a s e d on t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n s , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o o r d e r Maye t o s e r v e t h e b a l a n c e o f h i s e i g h t year sentence, because the e x e c u t i o n o f t h a t sentence would be illegal. be See § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) f . (an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r may r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e n o t more t h a n Moore v. S t a t e , 40 So. n o t i c e o f an i l l e g a l 3d 750 90 d a y s i n a DOC ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) sentences (recognizing in a 2009) (taking sentence even though not r a i s e d a t o r on a p p e a l ) ; G l a s s v. S t a t e , 14 So. 3d 188, App. facility); that manner the issue outside 194 of the the trial ( A l a . Crim. e x e c u t i o n of statutory range of p u n i s h m e n t n e e d n o t be p r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w b e c a u s e this Court i s "required to notice an illegal sentence and remand t o t h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u r t f o r a p r o p e r s e n t e n c e . " ) ; Hunt v. State, ("Matters 659 So. 2d concerning 998, 999 ( A l a . Crim. unauthorized App. 1994) sentences are jurisdictional."). See a l s o W a r w i c k v. S t a t e , 843 So. 2d (Ala. 2002) Crim. App. (sua sponte remanding illegal.). 13 832 probation r e v o c a t i o n c a s e , s u b m i t t e d v i a A n d e r s p r o c e d u r e , on t h e t h a t W a r w i c k ' s s e n t e n c e was and ground CR-09-1547 Additionally, Court's recent I t o o am decision November 24, 2010] State, App. Collins's as petition required commenced nothing by the § (table), 6-6-640, before this t h e Alabama Collins, ( A l a . 2010). 7, 2010) this for a writ i n the c i r c u i t Court reversed erred So. 3d 2010) of i n Ex p a r t e (No. CR-09-0529, May Crim. aware [Ms. 1091310, In C o l l i n s So. 3d Court held (Ala. that court, 1975, no was there was and, t h e r e f o r e , t o review. The A l a b a m a Supreme t h i s C o u r t ' s judgment, h o l d i n g t h a t t h i s that the p e t i t i o n was n o t v e r i f i e d . does n o t l i m i t t h e power o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t the p e t i t i o n , " So. 3d a t the Court . cited decision that to adjudicate In support of t h i s i t s earlier on Supreme matter r a t h e r than a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matter. Collins, Court ruling The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t v e r i f i c a t i o n was "a p r o c e d u r a l Supreme because action i n sua sponte a f f i r m i n g the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s basis v. o f c e r t i o r a r i was n o t v e r i f i e d A l a . Code Court Supreme Ex p a r t e conclusion, i n Ex parte Seymour, 946 So. 2d 538 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h t h a t C o u r t h e l d that a court's "subject-matter power t o d e c i d e the certain j u r i s d i c t i o n concerns a court's types of cases." and " i s d e r i v e d A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d t h e A l a b a m a Code." 14 Ex from parte CR-09-1547 Seymour, 946 So. 2d a t 538. Supreme Court's decisions C o l l i n s were i n t e n d e d I do n o t b e l i e v e t h a t t h e A l a b a m a i n Ex p a r t e Seymour o r Ex parte t o o v e r r u l e by i m p l i c a t i o n t h e l i n e o f authority that provides t h a t an i l l e g a l sentence i s a matter t h a t may be s u a s p o n t e r e c o g n i z e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t . That C o u r t h a s h a d o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o e x t e n d t h e r a t i o n a l e o f Seymour to illegal sentences, b u t i t h a s n o t y e t done so. For e x a m p l e , i n Ex p a r t e T r a w i c k , 972 So. 2d 782 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , 32.2, Ala.R.Crim.P., i n addressing a procedural bar i n Rule stated: "Trawick's c l a i m t h a t h i s sentence i s i l l e g a l under t h e HFOA p r e s e n t s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l claim. See, e.g., Ex p a r t e Robey, 920 So. 2d 1069, 1071-72 ( A l a . 2004) ( h o l d i n g t h a t b e c a u s e 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 o f f e n s e c o n s t i t u t e a s e n t e n c e t h a t e x c e e d s t h e maximum a l l o w e d b y l a w a n d an i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e a f f e c t s the t r i a l court's j u r i s d i c t i o n , 'Robey i s n o t b a r r e d f r o m a s s e r t i n g i n t h i s s u c c e s s i v e R u l e 32 petition the v i o l a t i o n of h i s double-jeopardy r i g h t s ' ) ; Ex p a r t e S a n d e r s , 792 So. 2d 1087, 1091 ( A l a . 2001) ( ' " [ w ] h e t h e r a s e n t e n c e i s e x c e s s i v e ... i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e " t h a t i s n o t p r e c l u d e d by t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d o f R u l e 32, b y t h e r u l e against successive petitions, or by Rule 32.2(a)(3)')." 972 So. 2d a t 783. parte or Ex p a r t e T r a w i c k was d e c i d e d Seymour, a n d I do n o t s e e a n y t h i n g i n the recently released Ex 15 parte i n Ex p a r t e Collins a f t e r Ex Seymour opinion as CR-09-1547 impacting the p r o p r i e t y of illegal-sentence I t may this Court's sua sponte n o t i c i n g claims. w e l l be t h a t Maye i s n o t an "eligible offender." However, g i v e n t h a t t h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e r e c o r d Maye's probation technical t h a t he was violation, revoked t h a t he for was something not other d i d not p e r f o r m h i s o b l i g a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g six-month p e r i o d of time, answer t h a t q u e s t i o n the in issue. which I presently rights cannot, before having record state f o r the and appellant the meritorious of violated. a benefit claims, a I question of an remaining consecutive that seeking Maye's t h a t one the of argument avenue step of the main an record to Maye's is a argue rights retroactive 16 lack to brief i s s u e i n a case i s to provide that another parties revocation advocate believe T h a t Maye has petition or for certain that However, g i v e n Anders procedure the this were v i o l a t e d i n h i s p r o b a t i o n reasons filing the Court, onto a s l i p p e r y slope. enough first that addressing from this a I b e l i e v e i t premature to attempt to without I recognize than felon, a nonviolent c u r r e n t on t h e payment o f c o u r t - o r d e r money, f o r a that may seek indigent potentially does have raise been relief a p p l i c a t i o n of by the CR-09-1547 technical-violator Code 1975, does present pursuant motion appeal. provision pursuant not supersede Thus, this I believe t o the Anders procedure, to withdraw, instruct the p a r t i e s court's imposition sentence violates appoint respectfully to brief of the t o § 15-22-54.1, A l a . Court's that this review Court, i n the should, grant appellate counsel's new appellate counsel, and the i s s u e whether the c i r c u i t balance § 15-22-54(d)(1)f. dissent. 17 of Maye's For these eight-year reasons, I

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.