Charlie Stith v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 04/29/2011 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-09-0754 Charlie Stith v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from M a r i o n C i r c u i t (CC-07-160.61) On R e t u r n WELCH, P r e s i d i n g Charlie dismissal Crim. t o Remand Judge. Stith appeals o f what appears P., p e t i t i o n October Court from the circuit t o be h i s f i r s t court's Rule f o rpostconviction r e l i e f 10, 2008, g u i l t y plea and concomitant summary 3 2 , A l a . R. challenging h i s convictionfor CR-09-0754 first-degree sodomy, 1975, is which imprisonment appeal. a f o r 10 14, ineffective in not Stith's eligible of Code a Stith incentive A time sentence, serving plea sentence, felony. was file a deemed advice regarding of direct filed on counsel was felony ("good split failed to inform time" are time not failed Stith serve with him that regard that he would to h i s prison i s a Class A f e l o n y and offenders eligible to advise for convicted correctional 5 because good time Stith Stith t h a t an offer t o f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy, a C l a s s would i n prison Specifically, collateral time"). counsel to the i n the f o l l o w i n g r e s p e c t s : f i r s t - d e g r e e sodomy wherein less d i d not sentence that h i s t r i a l f o r "good Stith's felony, his claimed from the State t o p l e a d g u i l t y A 1 3 A - 6 - 6 3 , A l a . Code and petition 1975, § 14-9-41, p r o v i d e s Class (B) Stith counsel sentence because Ala. felony, 32 rendering of a g u i l t y be of § 2009. hispetition, (A) A years. Rule In effects violation Class Stith's September a receive years, than would under a 20-year result prison in Stith's a "straight" 10-year c o u l d n o t be e a r n e d f o r a Class alleged that, " i f[ S t i t h ] 2 A would CR-09-0754 have was really going understood to prison that when he p l e a d [ e d ] f o r ten ( 1 0 ) years without and/or p a r o l e [ , S t i t h ] would n o t have agreed (C. Stith's Stith's was and Brownlee v. S t a t e , circuit case-action (C. Stith was q u e s t i o n a b l e i n his brief abandoned The allowed good to plead to plead and S t i t h ' s about S t i t h ' s " r a g e " i s s u e s . not pursued deemed counsel competence concerned time guilty." will on n o t be appeal, summary: denied when counsel was This therefore, considered. 666 S o . 2 d 9 1 , 93 court (C. 9-12.) guilty (Ala. Crim. the p e t i t i o n , claim i ti s See, e.g., App. stating 1995). on t h e " P E T I T I O N DENIED SEE S T A T E ' S R E S P O N S E . " 3.) We determined that could be 1208, 1210 ( A l a . C r i m . the ... he 12.) (C) 2d guilty meritorious. 8 5 7 , 858 ( A l a . C r i m . circuit f i n d i n g s court of the allegations See Patterson App. 2003), i n Stith's v. State, petition 879 a n d H o l t v . S t a t e , 905 S o . App. 2004), and remanding t h i s f o r that court f a c t t o make specific, c o n c e r n i n g ineffective-assistance-of-counsel 3 So. 2d allegations. case t o written S t i t h ' s The circuit CR-09-0754 court has address complied the To merits prevail counsel, a 466 of on 668 process, we remand Stith's a claim the (1984). have order, so ineffective u l t i m a t e l y prove that defense. In we proceed to appeal. of d e f i c i e n t and prejudiced U.S. our p e t i t i o n e r must p e r f o r m a n c e was actually with the the assistance that of counsel's d e f i c i e n t performance S t r i c k l a n d v. context of Washington, the guilty-plea held: "When an appellant's claim of ineffective a s s i s t a n c e of counsel a r i s e s from a l l e g e d e r r o r s c o m m i t t e d by c o u n s e l i n t h e g u i l t y p l e a p r o c e s s , the prejudice prong of the Strickland analysis is satisfied by the appellant's establishing 'that there i s a reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t , but for c o u n s e l ' s e r r o r s , he w o u l d n o t h a v e p l e a d e d g u i l t y a n d w o u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d on g o i n g t o t r i a l . ' " Culver quoting v. State, Hill v. 549 So. 2d Lockhart, 568, 474 572 U.S. 52, In h i s p o s t c o n v i c t i o n p e t i t i o n , f o r the erroneous advice guilty i n order Section incentive to of c o u n s e l , receive a 10-year 1 4 - 9 - 4 1 , A l a . Code 1975, time deductions," (Ala. Crim. provides 59 Stith App. (1985). asserted he w o u l d n o t that, have but pleaded sentence. e n t i t l e d "Computation in pertinent part: "(a) E a c h p r i s o n e r who shall hereafter c o n v i c t e d o f any o f f e n s e a g a i n s t t h e l a w s o f S t a t e of Alabama and i s c o n f i n e d , i n e x e c u t i o n 4 1989), be the of of CR-09-0754 the j u d g m e n t o r s e n t e n c e upon a n y c o n v i c t i o n , i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y or at hard labor f o r the county or i n any m u n i c i p a l j a i l f o r a d e f i n i t e o r i n d e t e r m i n a t e t e r m , o t h e r t h a n f o r l i f e , whose r e c o r d o f c o n d u c t s h o w s t h a t he h a s f a i t h f u l l y o b s e r v e d t h e r u l e s f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e t o b e s p e c i f i e d b y t h i s a r t i c l e may be e n t i t l e d t o e a r n a d e d u c t i o n f r o m t h e t e r m o f h i s s e n t e n c e as f o l l o w s : II "(e) P r o v i d e d , h o w e v e r , no p e r s o n may r e c e i v e the b e n e f i t s o f c o r r e c t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e t i m e i f he o r she has been c o n v i c t e d o f a C l a s s A f e l o n y o r has been sentenced to l i f e , or death, o r who has r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e f o r m o r e t h a n 15 y e a r s i n t h e state p e n i t e n t i a r y or i n the county j a i l at hard l a b o r o r i n any m u n i c i p a l j a i l . No p e r s o n may receive the b e n e f i t s of c o r r e c t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e time i f he o r s h e h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 15-20-21(5) [ A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ] . No p e r s o n may be p l a c e d i n C l a s s I i f he o r s h e h a s b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f an assault where the victims of such assault s u f f e r e d the permanent l o s s or use or permanent partial loss or use of any bodily organ or appendage. No p e r s o n may b e p l a c e d i n C l a s s I i f he or she has b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g t h e p e r p e t r a t i o n o f s e x u a l abuse upon t h e p e r s o n o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e a g e o f 17 y e a r s . "The c o u r t s e n t e n c i n g a p e r s o n s h a l l n o t e u p o n the t r a n s c r i p t t o accompany such p r i s o n e r t h e f a c t t h a t he o r s h e h a s b e e n s e n t e n c e d a s a r e s u l t o f a c r i m e t h a t f o r b i d s h i s o r h e r b e i n g c l a s s i f i e d as a Class I prisoner." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The affidavit of t r i a l counsel 5 stated: CR-09-0754 "11. On O c t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , M r . S t i t h w a s a g a i n b e f o r e t h e C o u r t a n d t h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y made a p l e a o f f e r o f 20 y e a r s s p l i t t o s e r v e 5 y e a r s . As Mr. S t i t h ' s a t t o r n e y I h a d a d u t y a n d o b l i g a t i o n t o make h i m a w a r e o f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t o f f e r . "12. U p o n a d v i s i n g M r . S t i t h o f t h e o f f e r o f 20 y e a r s s p l i t t o s e r v e 5 y e a r s , he d e c l i n e d b u t s t a t e d t h a t h e w o u l d e n t e r i n t o a p l e a a g r e e m e n t f o r 10 years because with that sentence he w o u l d be entitled t o 'good' time. The r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f e n t e r i n g i n t o t h e p l e a were e x p l a i n e d i n d e t a i l t o him. "13. T h e D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y w a s made a w a r e o f M r . S t i t h ' s d e c i s i o n t o e n t e r a p l e a f o r a recommended sentence o f 10 y e a r s and the D i s t r i c t Attorney accepted the plea offer. On O c t o b e r 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , M r . S t i t h entered a p l e a of g u i l t y t o the charge o f Sodomy 1 s t a n d t h e p r o s e c u t o r r e c o m m e n d e d a s e n t e n c e o f 10 y e a r s . " "14. A t n o t i m e w a s M r . S t i t h t o l d b y me t h a t h e w o u l d r e c e i v e g o o d t i m e a l t h o u g h h e d i d a s k me a b o u t good time. I t o l d him, as I t e l l each and every defendant, t h a t I c a n n o t a n d do n o t c a l c u l a t e o r attempt to advise clients regarding the State's rules a n d r e g u l a t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o an inmate earning good-time. I n f a c t , I c a r e f u l l y made s u r e t h a t he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t no o n e , e x c e p t f o r the D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s , c a l c u l a t e [ s i c ] o r make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g good t i m e c r e d i t t o be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t a sentence t h a t had been imposed." (SR. 13-14.) 1 (Emphasis The s u p p l e m e n t a l d e s i g n a t e d a s S.R. 1 added.) r e c o r d f u r n i s h e d on r e t u r n t o remand i s 6 CR-09-0754 The c i r c u i t c o u r t r e v i e w e d and the a f f i d a v i t of t r i a l counsel found: "After review affidavit of t r i a l makes t h e f o l l o w i n g of [Stith's] claims and the counsel attached; the Court findings of f a c t : "1. [Stith] entered a guilty plea to first-degree sodomy on O c t o b e r 10, 2009. "2. [Stith] agreed t o a s t r a i g h t ten-year sentence after rejecting a twenty split five sentence w h i c h was o f f e r e d b y t h e D i s t r i c t Attorney. "3. [ S t i t h ] was r e p r e s e n t e d b y o n e o f t h e Circuit's most experienced and well q u a l i f i e d attorneys "4. [ S t i t h ] was a d v i s e d a s t o t h e p o s s i b l e range o f sentence f o r a C l a s s A f e l o n y . "5. [ S t i t h ] a c k n o w l e d g e d on t h e r e c o r d that he understood his constitutional rights a n d t h a t he u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y and v o l u n t a r i l y pleaded g u i l t y and waived h i s rights. "6. T r i a l Counsel f u l l y advised to h i s r i g h t s and c h o i c e s . [Stith] "7. A t no t i m e d i d T r i a l C o u n s e l [ S t i t h ] t h a t be w o u l d r e c e i v e ' g o o d as advise time.' " T h i s C o u r t f i n d s t h a t no m a t e r i a l i s s u e o f l a w o r fact exists that would e n t i t l e [Stith] to r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 32, a n d t h a t no p u r p o s e w o u l d be s e r v e d by any f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . "[Stith's] petition i s without 7 merit. CR-09-0754 "The p e t i t i o n (S.R. i s DENIED." 11-12.) In 1995), Fearson this v. court State, held 662 that So. 2d i t was 1225 not ( A l a . Crim. incumbent t r i a l c o u r t t o e x p l a i n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t , who i n t e n d e d guilty, that, as a C l a s s A felon, earn c o r r e c t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e time, good he w o u l d be upon the to plead ineligible to ("CIT"), a l s o r e f e r r e d t o as time. " F e a r s o n a s s e r t s on a p p e a l t h a t h i s p l e a s w e r e n o t i n t e l l i g e n t , k n o w i n g , a n d v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e , he says, neither h i s attorney nor the t r i a l court advised him t h a t , because f i r s t degree robbery i s a C l a s s A f e l o n y , he w o u l d be i n e l i g i b l e to earn c o r r e c t i o n a l i n c e n t i v e t i m e ('CIT') u n d e r C o d e o f Alabama 1975, § 1 4 - 9 - 4 1 ( e ) . Fearson presented this issue i n a motion t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y pleas, w h i c h was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n o f l a w . This issue does n o t i n v o l v e any m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o r e r r o n e o u s advice allegedly inducing the defendant into pleading guilty. "'An accused i s entitled to information c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i r e c t c o n s e q u e n c e s o f h i s p l e a . He is not e n t i t l e d to information concerning a l l collateral effects, or future contingencies that m i g h t a r i s e . ' M i n n i f i e l d v . S t a t e , 439 So. 2 d 1 9 0 , 192 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . We d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t i n e l i g i b i l i t y t o earn CIT i s a d i r e c t consequence o f a guilty plea as t o w h i c h a d e f e n d a n t must be advised before entering a plea. See J o h n s o n v . P u c k e t t , 930 F . 2 d 4 4 5 , 448 n. 2 ( 5 t h C i r . ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 502 U.S. 8 9 0 , 112 S . C t . 2 5 2 , 116 L . E d . 2 d 206 (1991) ( t h e c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e e f f e c t o f a d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a on g o o d t i m e c r e d i t s i s a 8 App. CR-09-0754 c o l l a t e r a l consequence of which the defendant need n o t be a d v i s e d ) ; J o h n s o n v . D e e s , 581 F . 2 d 1166, 1167 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 8 ) (the court h e l d t h a t the t r i a l court's f a i l u r e to inform the defendant that he c o u l d be d e n i e d good time c r e d i t s as a serious m u l t i p l e offender d i d not preclude the entry of a v o l u n t a r y and i n t e l l i g e n t p l e a because such m a t t e r i s a c o l l a t e r a l consequence). "'The mere hope, subjective belief, or expectation of a defendant regarding length of sentence, parole, conditions of confinement, and other similar matters w h i c h a r e not b a s e d upon a p r o m i s e by t h e state are insufficient to warrant the [setting aside of a p l e a of g u i l t . ] State v . H o l m a n , 486 S o . 2 d 500 ( A l a . 1986); T i n e r v . S t a t e , 421 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 9 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982). The same i s t r u e w h e r e t h e defendant claims that his hope and e x p e c t a t i o n i s b a s e d upon c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h his counsel. N o r m a n v . M c C o t t e r , 765 F . 2 d 504 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 8 5 ) ; J o h n s o n v . Lockhart, 746 F . 2 d 1367 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 8 4 ) (wherein the defendant was not allowed to withdraw guilty plea even though his counsel misinformed him about his parole eligibility, w h e n t h e r e was no evidence that counsel promised defendant that he w o u l d be p a r o l e d ) ; G r e a t h o u s e v. United S t a t e s , 548 F . 2 d 225 ( 8 t h C i r . 1 9 7 7 ) , c e r t . denied, 434 U.S. 838, 98 S . C t . 130, 54 L . E d . 2 d 100 ( 1 9 7 7 ) ( w h e r e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t a l l o w e d t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a even though his counsel incorrectly i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t , i f he p l e a d e d g u i l t y , the f e d e r a l c o u r t c o u l d o r d e r h i s s t a t e and f e d e r a l sentences to run c o n c u r r e n t l y ) . ' " C u l v e r v . S t a t e , 549 S o . 2 d 5 6 8 , 571 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1989). S e e a l s o O y e k o y a v . S t a t e , 558 S o . 2 d 9 9 0 , 990 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v. 9 CR-09-0754 Campbell, 778 F.2d 764, 768 (11th Cir. 1985)) ('counsel's f a i l u r e to advise the defendant of the c o l l a t e r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a g u i l t y p l e a ... c a n n o t r i s e to the l e v e l of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ineffective assistance')." F e a r s o n v. State, I n F e a r s o n we to earn CIT In was that a omission and State, Class 1226. failure to advise, entitle Patterson circuit A felon's consequence 879 So. felon 2d to 1208 as to court relief, could not to an (Ala. Crim. accrue and, thus, CIT We omission, a collateral for further plea. f a i l u r e i n Fearson to opposed regarding ineligibility a guilty a s an a c t i v e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . misrepresentation, the at noted that a Class A v. not to 2d characterized counsel's Fearson a So. a collateral Patterson 2 0 0 3 ) , we 662 we App. advise as held that i.e., consequence, a would remanded the proceedings. "As t h e S t a t e c o r r e c t l y n o t e s i n i t s b r i e f on appeal, counsel's f a i l u r e to advise a defendant that he was 'not' eligible to earn IGT [correctional i n c e n t i v e t i m e ] c r e d i t w h i l e he was incarcerated does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel nor does i t render a guilty plea involuntary. F e a r s o n v . S t a t e , 662 So. 2d 1225 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995). Moreover, the Court found t h a t P a t t e r s o n was a d v i s e d o f t h e c o r r e c t s e n t e n c i n g range f o r the crime of f i r s t - d e g r e e b u r g l a r y before he e n t e r e d h i s g u i l t y p l e a . A c c o r d i n g l y , he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f on h i s c l a i m t h a t h i s g u i l t y p l e a was n o t k n o w i n g l y a n d v o l u n t a r i l y e n t e r e d . 10 an case CR-09-0754 "However, P a t t e r s o n c o n t e n d s t h a t t r i a l c o u n s e l t o l d h i m t h a t h e w o u l d r e c e i v e IGT c r e d i t i f he pleaded g u i l t y t o t h i s offense. I t i s u n c l e a r from the r e c o r d whether counsel d i d i n f a c t so m i s i n f o r m P a t t e r s o n r e g a r d i n g h i s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r IGT c r e d i t . T h i s C o u r t must remand t h i s m a t t e r t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n as t o t h i s i s s u e , and t h e S t a t e h a s r e q u e s t e d t h a t we d o s o . " 879 So. 2d a t 1210. Since Court Fearson i n Padilla (2010), has was decided, v. Kentucky, narrowed a felony deportation advise h o l d i n g t h a t when an a l i e n consequence result was i n e f f e c t i v e , 130 between guilty that the f a i l u r e pleading guilty Supreme S . C t . 1473 a collateral counsel's was n o t a d v i s e d i n h i s being of pleading -- was s o s e v e r e the defendant States c o n s e q u e n c e when r e v i e w i n g conviction could collateral 5 5 9 U.S. the d i s t i n c t i o n consequence and a d i r e c t performance, the United about deported, the i.e., possible or omission the to consequence assistance of counsel. "Before d e c i d i n g whether t o p l e a d g u i l t y , a defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o 'the e f f e c t i v e assistance of competent c o u n s e l . ' McMann v . R i c h a r d s o n , 397 U.S. 7 5 9 , 7 7 1 , 90 S . C t . 1 4 4 1 , 25 L . E d . 2 d 763 (1970); S t r i c k l a n d v . W a s h i n g t o n , 4 6 6 U.S. [668], a t 6 8 6 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 [ ( 1 9 8 4 ) ] . The Supreme C o u r t of Kentucky r e j e c t e d P a d i l l a ' s i n e f f e c t i v e n e s s c l a i m on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e a d v i c e h e s o u g h t a b o u t t h e risk of deportation concerned only collateral matters, i . e . , those matters not within the sentencing authority of the state t r i a l court. 11 that CR-09-0754 [Commonwealth o f K e n t u c k y v. P a d i l l a , ] 2 5 3 S.W.3d [ 4 8 2 ] , a t 483-484 [(Ky. 2008)] ( c i t i n g Commonwealth v . F u a r t a d o , 170 S.W.3d 384 ( 2 0 0 5 ) ) . I n i t s view, ' c o l l a t e r a l consequences a r e o u t s i d e t h e scope o f representation r e q u i r e d b y t h e S i x t h Amendment,' and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e ' f a i l u r e o f d e f e n s e c o u n s e l t o advise the defendant of possible deportation consequences i s not cognizable as a c l a i m f o r i n e f f e c t i v e assistance of counsel.' 2 5 3 S.W.3d, a t 483. The K e n t u c k y h i g h c o u r t i s f a r f r o m a l o n e i n t h i s view. "We, h o w e v e r , h a v e n e v e r a p p l i e d a d i s t i n c t i o n between d i r e c t and c o l l a t e r a l consequences t o d e f i n e the scope of constitutionally 'reasonable p r o f e s s i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e ' r e q u i r e d under S t r i c k l a n d , 466 U.S., a t 6 8 9 , 104 S . C t . 2 0 5 2 . Whether that d i s t i n c t i o n i s a p p r o p r i a t e i s a q u e s t i o n we n e e d n o t consider i n t h i s case because o f t h e unique nature of d e p o r t a t i o n . " Padilla v. Kentucky, (footnotes Rule (Ala. Coleman, 2010), 32 p e t i t i o n e r evidentiary hearing his , 130 S . C t . a t 1481 omitted). In Ex p a r t e 3d 5 5 9 U.S. a t eligibility [Ms. 1 0 9 0 9 7 5 , A u g . 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 ] t h e Alabama stated Supreme a claim Court sufficient held that to require when t h e p e t i t i o n e r was m i s i n f o r m e d f o r work r e l e a s e So. an about and parole. "Coleman contends t h a t h i s d e c i s i o n t o p l e a d g u i l t y t o the four offenses 'was b a s e d s o l e l y u p o n counsel's representations of parole and work-release eligibility' a n d t h a t , h a d h e known t h a t he was actually ineligible f o r parole and work release b e c a u s e o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o f f e n s e s , he w o u l d n o t have pleaded guilty but, instead, 'would have 12 a CR-09-0754 i n s i s t e d on p. 10. ... proceeding to t r i a l . ' Coleman's brief, II "Coleman has a l l e g e d f a c t s t h a t , i f t r u e , w o u l d e n t i t l e him t o r e l i e f . As n o t e d , C o l e m a n a l l e g e d i n t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n t h a t , b u t f o r h i s attorney's m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g Coleman's e l i g i b i l i t y for parole and w o r k r e l e a s e , he would not have p l e a d e d g u i l t y b u t , i n s t e a d , w o u l d h a v e i n s i s t e d on going to t r i a l . See W i n b u s h [ v . S t a t e , 18 S o . 3d 423 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ] ( c i t i n g H i l l v . Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ) . Furthermore, i n h i s affidavit, Coleman a l l e g e d ' s p e c i a l circumstances t h a t m i g h t s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t he placed particular e m p h a s i s on h i s p a r o l e e l i g i b i l i t y in d e c i d i n g whether or not to p l e a d g u i l t y . ' See Hill, 474 U.S. a t 60. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Coleman a l l e g e d t h a t he had no reason to plead guilty to a 20-year sentence 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 or work r e l e a s e because, Coleman s a i d , ' a t my a g e o f 63, a 20 y e a r s e n t e n c e i s a l i f e s e n t e n c e . ' Therefore, i f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f C o l e m a n ' s p e t i t i o n a r e t a k e n as t r u e , Coleman p l a c e d 'particular e m p h a s i s ' on h i s attorney's statements regarding his e l i g i b i l i t y for p a r o l e and work r e l e a s e i n d e c i d i n g t o a c c e p t t h e p l e a agreement." Ex parte Coleman, Likewise, (Ala. C r i m . App. petition of the 3d Winbush at v. State, (emphasis 18 2009), Winbush a s s e r t e d that his counsel erroneously receive in So. informed him was ineffective that "good-time c r e d i t . " information provided i f he So. in a added). 3d 423, 423-24 postconviction because counsel pleaded had guilty he would W i n b u s h a l l e g e d t h a t as a result by h i s c o u n s e l , 13 he p l e a d e d guilty. CR-09-0754 We held that eligibility claim of counsel's for erroneous good-time ineffective c r e d i t was assistance remanded f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n In this case, that provided year Stith was t h a t i f he sentence, advice split of on regarding a viable counsel. the with basis The t r u t h of presented Winbush's the for case was claim. a plea agreement p l e a d e d g u i l t y he w o u l d r e c e i v e a to serve rejected that agreement negotiate a different plea 5 and years, requested day for that a day. his agreement t h a t p r o v i d e d 20He counsel t h a t i f he p l e a d e d g u i l t y he w o u l d r e c e i v e a 1 0 - y e a r " s t r a i g h t " s e n t e n c e , telling counsel that h i s reason f o r doing earn good time less than 5 years "particular deciding whether was simple 1975, would Class A or on not thus, t h a t he presumptively, I t i s clear that his eligibility to plead advise for a him Class to serve Stith earn would placed guilty. d i d not available reading and, in prison. counsel not deductions CIT), emphasis" Stith's CIT) (i.e., s o was CIT t h a t good time A felony. in (i.e., However, a o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e , § 14-9-41, A l a . Code have are felony. not informed counsel available for Counsel asserted 14 an that incentive inmate convicted in his affidavit: time of a CR-09-0754 "In fact, I carefully made sure that he u n d e r s t o o d t h a t no o n e , e x c e p t f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s , c a l c u l a t e [ s i c ] o r make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n r e g a r d i n g good t i m e c r e d i t t o be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t a sentence t h a t had been imposed." (SR. 14.) Although effect was that he c o u l d incorrect earn and amounted Merely reading properly advise reason counsel why law. important The knows conclusion, given the legal to to Stith was regarding to a misrepresentation A felony. i s appointed effect "[E]very that often the of a I t i s axiomatic i s to advise sentence lawyer a (5th C i r . 1955). Smith v. U n i t e d The f a c t t h a t instigated a renegotiation doubled the duration of of guilt being of h i splea most should criminal i s a foregone about t h e s e v e r i t y States, Stith, about the lawyer engaged i n defending finding that the a client i s one and t h a t t h e r e a l i s s u e centers of the punishment." law, CIT, t h e advice matters about which a c r i m i n a l - d e f e n s e cognizant. cases of S t i t h t h a t he c o u l d n o t r e c e i v e i n c e n t i v e t i m e f o r a Class be unaware t h e s t a t u t e would have e n a b l e d c o u n s e l t o deductions the apparently o f § 1 4 - 9 - 4 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d d i d n o t r e p r e s e n t Stith law. counsel 2 2 3 F . 2 d 7 5 0 , 754 ignorant that of the effectively of h i s imprisonment i s not a f a c t o r 15 that CR-09-0754 prevents him ineffective from pleading assistance Whether of or counsel on a claim of counsel. denominated misrepresentation, prevailing as failed an omission t o advise Stith or that a i f he a c c e p t e d t h e p l e a agreement t h a t c a l l e d f o ra 10-year s t r a i g h t sentence the the r e s u l t would full 10 years' be t h a t imprisonment. provide effective assistance advised Stith Corrections, that 5 years counsel's CIT) "no would have t o Stith's of counsel one, e x c e p t counsel when he S t i t h was a l l o w e d t o t h e amount failure t o advise incorrectly he w o u l d good time of regarding that serve due t o credit (i.e., was n o t a v a i l a b l e . It i s true deductions of which t h a t t h e Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s from sentences pursuant t o t h e i r are restricted Regulation calculations 427, Alabama and u n a v a i l a b l e Department criminal history. 16 (some t o t h e p u b l i c , e.g., of Corrections). a r e b a s e d o n , among o t h e r an i n m a t e ' s p r i o r calculates regulations considerations, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f f i c i a l views the circumstances and d i d not t o make a d e c i s i o n of time him that serve f o r the Department [may] c a l c u l a t e o r make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n good time c r e d i t . " added Stith Those how a of the offense To some e x t e n t those CR-09-0754 determinations counsel guilty a cannot be i s not required regarding sentence accurately predicted. to advise every the i n c e n t i v e time o f f e r e d pursuant when a d e f e n d a n t h a s e x p r e s s e d defendant deductions to a plea Therefore, pleading available for agreement. However, to h i s or her counsel that the a v a i l a b i l i t y of good-time or i n c e n t i v e c r e d i t i s a s u b s t a n t i a l material factor, i . e . , the defendant places "particular e m p h a s i s " on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f C I T i n h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n t o accept or reject a plea agreement, counsel must a d v i s e t h e defendant o f any s t a t u t o r y p r o h i b i t i o n s that would prevent Failure to presented Thus, do i n this was, case, proved i n the a guilty 10-year relying straight proceedings circumstances was i n e f f e c t i v e and b e c a u s e he w o u l d n o t h a v e on a p l e a a g r e e m e n t t h a t p r o v i d e d f o r sentence. For the foregoing consistent with R E V E R S E D AND exist assistance of counsel. that h i s counsel r e v e r s e t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t for particular ineffective t h a t h e was p r e j u d i c e d a s a r e s u l t , pleaded that t h e defendant from e a r n i n g CIT d e d u c t i o n s . so Stith correctly REMANDED. 17 reasons, c o u r t and remand t h i s this opinion. we case CR-09-0754 Windom, concurs Kellum, i n the and Joiner, result. 18 J J . , concur. Burke, 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.