Feion Judio McQuieter 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 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-1760 Feion Judio McQuieter v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from M o b i l e C i r c u i t (CC-02-3144.10) Court WISE, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The a p p e l l a n t , F e i o n J u d i o M c Q u i e t e r , guilty term t o murder. The t r i a l o f twenty years ordered him t o serve court sentenced i n prison, but s p l i t four entered years a plea of him t o serve a t h e sentence and f o l l o w e d by f i v e y e a r s on CR-09-1760 supervised court probation. revoked On McQuieter's McQuieter f i l e d a " P e t i t i o n 22-54.1 (Technical September 13, probation. 2007, On the June circuit 22, 2010, f o r R e s e n t e n c i n g P u r s u a n t t o § 15¬ Violation of Probation)." Without r e q u i r i n g a response, the c i r c u i t court summarily denied the petition. This appeal followed. McQuieter denied his jurisdiction 22-54.1, argues petition that on the the circuit ground that court i t did t o modify the term of h i s sentence. A l a . Code 1975, erroneously not Section 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 p r o b a t i o n 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 . S u c h 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 Courts. 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 a u t h o r i z e d 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 C o u r t s , and s h a l l n o t r e q u i r e payment o f a f i l i n g fee. " (b) The court shall have j u r i s d i c t i o n to r e s e n t e n c e the o f f e n d e r i n accordance w i t h the 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 the terms of p r o b a t i o n f o r s i x 2 have 15¬ CR-09-1760 "(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 t o t h e 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 p r o b a t i o n . "(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 w h i l e 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 pending 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 . " (Emphasis added.) circuit I n i t s order dismissing the p e t i t i o n , the c o u r t f o u n d as f o l l o w s : " T h i s m a t t e r comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on [ M c Q u i e t e r ' s ] P e t i t i o n f o r R e s e n t e n c i n g P u r s u a n t t o 15-22-51.1 (Technical V i o l a t i o n of Probation). " [ M c Q u i e t e r ] was r e v o k e d f o r 20 y e a r s . T h i s i s a ' s t r a i g h t sentence.' The C o u r t no l o n g e r h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o m o d i f y t h e t e r m o f t h e s e n t e n c e as i t w o u l d w i t h a s p l i t s e n t e n c e . Thus, [ M c Q u i e t e r ' s ] M o t i o n i s DENIED." (C.R. 16.) I n Thompson v. S t a t e , App. 2007), we a d d r e s s e d 967 So. 2d 729, 730-32 ( A l a . C r i m . a similar situation with regard to m o t i o n s t o r e c o n s i d e r s e n t e n c e s p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-9.1, A l a . Code 1975, as f o l l o w s : "The a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d when i t d e n i e d h i s m o t i o n t o r e c o n s i d e r h i s s e n t e n c e i n c a s e number CC-94-429. In i t s order d e n y i n g t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o u n d as follows: 3 CR-09-1760 "'The d e f e n d a n t has f i l e d a Motion p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-9.1, Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, f o r t h e C o u r t t o a p p l y amended § 13A5-9 retroactively to modify his life s e n t e n c e s i n e a c h o f t h e above numbered cases. For the reasons s e t f o r t h below, the defendant does n o t q u a l i f y for a retroactive modification of those sentences. "'The Morgan County grand jury i n d i c t e d the defendant f o r the u n l a w f u l s a l e o f c o c a i n e i n Case No. CC 94-429, f o r two c o u n t s o f f i r s t d e g r e e r o b b e r y i n Case No. CC 95-831 and f o r one c o u n t o f f i r s t degree r o b b e r y i n Case No. CC 96-339. Having at least four prior felony convictions and being faced with the p r o s p e c t s o f two m a n d a t o r y l i f e w i t h o u t p a r o l e sentences i f c o n v i c t e d of robbery i n t h e f i r s t d e g r e e , a C l a s s A f e l o n y , i n Case Nos. CC 95-831 and CC 96-339, t h e d e f e n d a n t n e g o t i a t e d the f o l l o w i n g p l e a agreement w i t h the State: he w o u l d p l e a d g u i l t y t o t h i r d degree robbery, a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e , i n e a c h o f Case Nos. CC 95-831 and CC 96-339 and t o t h e u n l a w f u l s a l e o f c o c a i n e , a C l a s s B f e l o n y , i n Case No. CC 94-429. I n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e p l e a s , t h e S t a t e a g r e e d t o recommend t h a t he be sentenced to l i f e imprisonment on each c o n v i c t i o n t o run c o n c u r r e n t w i t h each other. The C o u r t a c c e p t e d t h e p r o p o s e d a g r e e m e n t and upon t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p l e a s o f g u i l t y , s e n t e n c e d him i n accordance w i t h the S t a t e ' s recommendation. "'There are only two classes of convicted defendants who qualify for r e t r o a c t i v e m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e i r sentences imposed pursuant t o the H a b i t u a l F e l o n y O f f e n d e r A c t (HFOA): those sentenced to 4 CR-09-1760 l i f e imprisonment w i t h o u t the p o s s i b i l i t y of p a r o l e under the mandatory p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e HFOA upon c o n v i c t i o n o f a C l a s s A felony w i t h no p r i o r Class A felony convictions; and those sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment under t h e mandatory p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e HFOA upon conviction of a Class B felony. I n Case Nos. CC 95-831 a n d CC 96-339, t h e d e f e n d a n t does n o t f a l l i n t o e i t h e r o f t h e s e c l a s s e s because he was c o n v i c t e d o f C l a s s C f e l o n i e s which had a punishment range under t h e HFOA o f f i f t e e n y e a r s minimum t o l i f e o r 99 y e a r s maximum. "'While t h e defendant d i d r e c e i v e the m a n d a t o r y l i f e s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e HFOA on his conviction f o r the unlawful sale of c o c a i n e , a C l a s s B f e l o n y , i n Case No. CC 94-429, a r e t r o a c t i v e r e d u c t i o n o f t h a t c o n c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-9.1 would be a u s e l e s s a c t a n d s e r v e no p u r p o s e . The d e f e n d a n t w o u l d s t i l l have t o serve t h e l i f e sentences imposed i n t h e o t h e r two c a s e s on h i s t h i r d d e g r e e r o b b e r y convictions because the Court h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o modify those sentences. "'The C o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t i s n o t q u a l i f i e d as a m a t t e r o f l a w t o have h i s t h r e e life s e n t e n c e s m o d i f i e d p u r s u a n t t o § 13A-5-9.1, Code. I t i s ORDERED AND ADJUDGED b y t h e Court that h i s Motion f o r court ordered e v a l u a t i o n by the Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s and f o r t h e r e t r o a c t i v e m o d i f i c a t i o n o f h i s sentences i s d e n i e d . ' "(C.R. 43-44.) " W i t h r e g a r d t o c a s e number CC-95-831 a n d c a s e number CC-96-339, we a g r e e w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 5 CR-09-1760 f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t was n o t e l i g i b l e f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s sentences. With regard to case number CC-94-429, we addressed a similar s i t u a t i o n i n F e r r e l l v. S t a t e , 944 So. 2d 162, 163¬ 64 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) , as f o l l o w s : "'The appellant argues that the c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he was n o t e l i g i b l e f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s sentence. "'"There are three requirements f o r e l i g i b i l i t y to have a sentence reconsidered u n d e r § 13A-5-9.1: (1) t h e i n m a t e was sentenced b e f o r e May 25, 2000, t h e d a t e t h e 2000 amendment t o t h e HFOA became e f f e c t i v e ; (2) t h e i n m a t e was s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e imprisonment without the p o s s i b i l i t y of parole pursuant to § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 ( c ) ( 3 ) and h a d no p r i o r C l a s s A f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n s o r was sentenced to l i f e imprisonment p u r s u a n t t o § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 ( c ) ( 2 ) , see P r e s t w o o d [ v . S t a t e , 915 So. 2d 580 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ; and (3) t h e i n m a t e i s a ' n o n v i o l e n t c o n v i c t e d o f f e n d e r . ' An i n m a t e must satisfy a l l three r e q u i r e m e n t s b e f o r e he o r she i s e l i g i b l e f o r reconsideration of sentence under § 13A-5-9.1." " ' H o l t v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-04-1250, M a r c h 3, 2006] So. 2d , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006). "'On S e p t e m b e r 15, 2005, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r i n w h i c h i t f o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s a t i s f i e d t h e f i r s t two r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n H o l t and o r d e r e d 6 CR-09-1760 DOC [ t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s ] t o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n i t c o u l d use t o determine whether t h e a p p e l l a n t was a n o n v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r . A f t e r DOC r e s p o n d e d , the c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion, s t a t i n g i n p a r t : "'"Upon a review of the records supplied by the Department of Corrections the C o u r t has determined that the Defendant was p a r o l e d on this c a s e on June 15, 1992. His p a r o l e was r e v o k e d on J u l y 5, 2000 and he was sent back t o continue s e r v i n g h i s sentence. He was p a r o l e d a g a i n on J u l y 30, 2001. His parole was revoked a g a i n on J a n u a r y 31, 2005. "'"Section 13A-5-9.1, Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, as amended, states in part '... for consideration of early parole ' This Court finds t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t has already r e c e i v e d the b e n e f i t of e a r l y parole and is therefore not eligible for relief." "'(C.R. 57.) "'Although the c i r c u i t court found t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s a t i s f i e d t h e f i r s t two e l i g i b i l i t y requirements set f o r t h i n Holt, i t d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r he was a nonviolent offender. Rather, i t determined that he was not eligible for r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f h i s s e n t e n c e b e c a u s e he had previously been paroled. Once e l i g i b i l i t y has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d , t h e f a c t that an offender has previously been 7 CR-09-1760 p a r o l e d may be a r e l e v a n t and material f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r when d e c i d i n g w h e t h e r t o resentence the o f f e n d e r . However, i t i s not relevant when m a k i n g the initial d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the o f f e n d e r i s e l i g i b l e t o have h i s s e n t e n c e r e c o n s i d e r e d . Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r o n e o u s l y based i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the a p p e l l a n t was not eligible to have his sentence reconsidered on the fact t h a t he had p r e v i o u s l y b e e n p a r o l e d , i t e r r e d when i t denied his motion on that ground. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t and remand t h i s case t o the c i r c u i t court f o r that court to set aside i t s order denying the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t o c o n s i d e r the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion pursuant to t h i s court's holding i n Holt.' " ( F o o t n o t e o m i t t e d . ) See a l s o V i n s o n v. S t a t e , [Ms. CR-05-1397, A u g u s t 25, 2006] So. 2d (Ala. C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ; W h i t e v. S t a t e , 947 So. 2d 436 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 6 ) . " I n c a s e number CC-94-429, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s that the appellant satisfied the first two eligibility requirements set forth in Holt. However, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r he was a n o n v i o l e n t o f f e n d e r . Rather, i t found t h a t he was not e l i g i b l e f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of h i s s e n t e n c e i n c a s e number CC-94-429 b a s e d on i t s determination that resentencing him would be p o i n t l e s s b e c a u s e he was a l s o s e r v i n g l i f e s e n t e n c e s i n two other cases. Once e l i g i b i l i t y has been determined, the f a c t t h a t r e s e n t e n c i n g the o f f e n d e r i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e w o u l d be p o i n t l e s s b e c a u s e he i s a l s o s e r v i n g a n o t h e r s e n t e n c e may be a r e l e v a n t and material factor to consider when deciding w h e t h e r t o r e s e n t e n c e him. However, i t i s n o t r e l e v a n t when m a k i n g t h e i n i t i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether the offender is eligible t o have his 8 CR-09-1760 sentence reconsidered. Therefore, the c i r c u i t court erroneously based i t s determination that the a p p e l l a n t was n o t e l i g i b l e t o have h i s s e n t e n c e i n c a s e number CC-94-429 r e c o n s i d e r e d on t h e f a c t t h a t i t w o u l d be p o i n t l e s s b e c a u s e he was a l s o s e r v i n g l i f e s e n t e n c e s i n two o t h e r c a s e s . See Vinson, supra; White, supra; F e r r e l l , supra. Accordingly, we a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o c a s e number CC-95-831 and c a s e number CC-96-339; r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t as t o c a s e number CC94-429; and remand t h i s c a s e as t o c a s e number CC94-429 f o r t h e circuit court to consider the a p p e l l a n t ' s motion pursuant to t h i s court's h o l d i n g in Holt." Contrary Ala. Code 1975, resentence revoked jurisdiction gives persons who technical erroneously courts have found had that 15-22-54.1, jurisdiction their violations. to probation Therefore, i t did not the have t o modify McQuieter's sentence s o l e l y because revoked and his Also, the record sentence." circuit upon court been specifically eligible based circuit had to the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , § court determined sentence does whether was not now a "straight indicate McQuieter he that the satisfied the e l i g i b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t f o r t h i n § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. to A c c o r d i n g l y , we remand t h i s c a s e f o r t h e c i r c u i t consider Ala. (Ala. McQuieter's Code 1975. C r i m . App. petition pursuant to § 15-22-54.1, See Thompson v. S t a t e , 967 So. 2d 729, 2007). 9 court 730-32 CR-09-1760 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Welch, Kellum, and Main, concurs i n the r e s u l t . 10 J J . , concur. Windom, 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.