H. A. M. v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

r e l : 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 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-09-1517 H.A.M. v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal BURKE, Court Judge. The appellant, from t h e Madison where he w o u l d with from Madison J u v e n i l e (JU-09-751.02) H.A.M., a p p e a l s Juvenile Court the transfer t o t h e Madison be p r o s e c u t e d as an a d u l t . murder, pursuant of h i s case Circuit Court H.A.M. i s c h a r g e d t o §13A-6-2(a)(1), A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . CR-09-1517 During hearing, the probable-cause Detective Michael Department 2010, testified he r e s p o n d e d middle a that, of the Madison on t h e a f t e r n o o n to a shooting that transfer Police of February had taken place 5, at a school i nHuntsville. Detective Shaneyfelt interviewed number spontaneous following of witnesses statements, bullets student to a t t h e s c h o o l , as w e l l the shooting. admitting the shooting. Witnesses the bathroom f o l l o w i n g down n e x t stated made immediately t h a t he w a l k e d into t h e g u n a n d some to the sink. into H.A.M. his guilt t h e s h o o t i n g and l a i d H.A.M. was t a k e n juvenile Miranda statements 1 rights. indicating handgun weeks e a r l i e r t h a t he b r o u g h t day. H.A.M. talking behind 1 202, o f H.A.M.'s Shaneyfelt H.A.M., who was a 1 4 - y e a r - o l d as phase custody a n d was i n f o r m e d H.A.M. g a v e b o t h t h a t he h a d t a k e n from oral stated that t h e house o f a f r i e n d . he h a d b e e n standing t h e gun from h i s pocket Beretta He a d m i t t e d to school that i n the hall, t o a f r i e n d when he saw t h e v i c t i m a n d s t a r t e d h i m . He p u l l e d his and w r i t t e n a .22 c a l i b e r t h e gun a n d two b o x e s o f s h e l l s of walking and shot t h e M i r a n d a v . A r i z o n a , 384 U. S. 436 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , a n d § 12-15¬ A l a . Code 1975 ( r i g h t s o f t h e j u v e n i l e ) . 2 CR-09-1517 victim the i n t h e b a c k o f h i s h e a d . The v i c t i m d i e d gunshot wound. Surveillance videotape c o n f i r m e d H.A.M.'s v e r s i o n was played teacher, relationship with writer. comprehend could be same a difficulties he him that He creative. i s a y o u ... i n t e r m s he also with she had a c l o s e r teachers. "so intelligent very A n d he c a n r e a d but that spoke the other ( R . 42.) She f u r t h e r loner class, between Psychiatric intelligence, intelligent something and what he h a s r e a d stated that interacted and she had never with H.A.M. other been aware of any them. assessments were p e r f o r m e d mental maturity, the hearing year-old recording H.A.M. a n d t h e v i c t i m h a d b o t h b e e n s t u d e n t s i n t h e English before who t o l d that he was h i g h l y i n t e l l i g e n t , i t and t e l l verbatim." students. testified i s o f f the charts He's v e r y almost s e c u r i t y camera The v i d e o H.A.M. t h a n h e h a d w i t h t e s t i f i e d that he of theevents. Shaneyfelt H.A.M.'s E n g l i s h that from t h e school's for the court. Detective She as a r e s u l t o f t o determine the and emotional s t a t u s on t h e S t a t e ' s j u v e n i l e to c i r c u i t court 3 motion o f H.A.M. t o t r a n s f e r t h e 14- t o stand trial as an a d u l t . CR-09-1517 The r e s u l t s o f t h o s e f i n d i n g s were a d m i t t e d no r e b u t t a l o r o b j e c t i o n f r o m t h e S t a t e . the hearing, circuit court appealed On when the juvenile appeal, H.A.M. argues i t transferred tried the 2 because mentally This whether v. case tothe as an a d u l t . H.A.M. affirm. the j u v e n i l e court to he a r g u e s t h a t t h e o r d e r the circuit erred court. c e r t i f y i n g H.A.M. t o b e H.A.M. was c o m m i t t a b l e Court has long held t o t r a n s f e r a minor child's State, In t o an i n s t i t u t i o n f o r i l l . made b y t h e j u v e n i l e j u d g e the that We H.A.M. a s a n a d u l t was i m p r o p e r u n d e r § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 0 3 ( c ) , A l a . C o d e 1975, the the t r a n s f e r order. with At theconclusion of transferred f o rc r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n from Specifically, court into evidence probation that the final f o r criminal prosecution and n o t b y t h e State's officer, experts, psychologist, Dr. attorney, Philip Palmer App. 1986). present case, J. testified f o r thedefense that, i nh i s opinion, b a s e d on i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , p e r s o n a l i t y p r o f i l e s , reports, must be or a parent. 485 So. 2 d 1247, 1248 ( A l a . C r i m . the determination of H.A.M. would benefit from being Lazarus, a and v a r i o u s committed t o an T h i s s t a t u t e was f o r m e r l y c o d i f i e d as § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 4 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975. 2 4 CR-09-1517 institution trial f o r mentally as an a d u l t . extreme depression diagnosed and have H.A.M. as based outthat H.A.M. suicidal standing tendencies. from from He also attention- and a n x i e t y d i s o r d e r . o f Dr. Lazarus, the prosecutor the m a j o r i t y o f Dr. Lazarus's on s e l f - r e p o r t i n g than as s u f f e r i n g suffering disorder cross-examination pointed offenders rather He d i a g n o s e d deficit/hyperactivity On i l l b y H.A.M. findings a n d on r e p o r t s were from h i s p a r e n t s . She f u r t h e r e l i c i t e d t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g a number o f inconsistencies i n theparents' statements H.A.M.'s b e h a v i o r . The p r o s e c u t o r n o t e d i n d i c a t i n g t h a t H.A.M. m i g h t suffer made t o t h e p s y c h o l o g i s t r a t h e r the o f f e n s e . 3 that the statements from a mental than illness to the police had s u i c i d a l 4 Moreover, tendencies, were following The p r o s e c u t o r a l s o q u e s t i o n e d D r . L a z a r u s H.A.M.'s i n t e l l i g e n c e . H.A.M. and assessments o f about a l t h o u g h he d e t e r m i n e d this finding was b a s e d that on For instance, the parents indicated i n t h e i r p o l i c e r e p o r t t h a t t h e r e was no h i s t o r y o f a t t e m p t e d s u i c i d e b y a f a m i l y member; t h a t H.A.M. h a d n o t e x h i b i t e d a n y a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r , d i f f i c u l t y s l e e p i n g o r e a t i n g ; a n d t h a t no f a m i l y member h a d e v e r b e e n d i a g n o s e d w i t h a m e n t a l i l l n e s s . However, t h e i r answers i n D r . L a z a r u s ' s r e p o r t were t o t h e o p p o s i t e . (R. 134-35.) 3 H.A.M. h a d a f u l l I.Q. s c o r e c o n c e d e d t h a t i t c o u l d be h i g h e r . 4 5 o f 119, b u t D r . L a z a r u s CR-09-1517 s t a t e m e n t s b y H.A.M., i n c l u d i n g h i s i n d i c a t i o n that he h a d p l a n n e d victim the but that juvenile evidence remaining court's discretion such an i n f o r m e d statutory Although the 5 after However, to disregard determination i t was w i t h i n unrebutted based fact that this t e s t i m o n y b y Dr. i s a matter 627 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 8 , 1 993) ("The juvenile report-and i t s conclusion judge f o r treatment for L a z a r u s was t o be a c c o r d e d the juvenile 1154-55 was a u t h o r i z e d t o d i s c o u n t that '[A.W.M.] i s an and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ' - i n i n the hostile r o b b e r y . Compare L a c k e y 1992) (when and a n t i - s o c i a l v. State, thefactfinder judge. ( A l a . Crim. App. e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d e l i b e r a t e l y p l a n n e d and participated on t h e criteria. testimony A.W.M. v . S t a t e , Lazarus killing the this i s c o n c e r n i n g , t h e amount o f w e i g h t expert candidate himself t h e gun h a d jammed. a n d make unrebutted on s h o o t i n g t o Dr. 615 So. that excellent light of willingly a c t o f armed 2 d 145 ( A l a . C r . A p p . h a s an o b j e c t i v e reason t o doubt T h e r e c o r d i n c l u d e s a document i n d i c a t i n g t h a t H.A.M. h a d once a t t e m p t e d s u i c i d e b y i n g e s t i n g p i l l s w h i l e s t a y i n g w i t h h i s f a m i l y a t a h o t e l . However, he t e l e p h o n e d f o r h e l p a n d r e c e i v e d m e d i c a l t r e a t m e n t . Moreover, Dr. L a z a r u s t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t h a v e an o p i n i o n as t o w h e t h e r H.A.M. w o u l d h a v e f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h w i t h h i s t h r e a t h a d t h e gun n o t jammed. (R. 147.) 5 6 CR-09-1517 the validity expert's o f an e x p e r t ' s testimony little conclusion, i t may g i v e t h e o r no w e i g h t ) . " ) . "Despite the f a c t t h a t t h i s i s a c l o s e case and that the decision of the juvenile court i s not n e c e s s a r i l y o n e t h i s C o u r t w o u l d h a v e r e a c h e d , we cannot say t h a t the j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s t r a n s f e r o r d e r was b a s e d s o l e l y o n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e o f f e n s e o r w a s u n s u p p o r t e d b y c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . I n our opinion, t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t was b a s e d on t h e f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g t h e o f f e n s e a n d t h e circumstances surrounding [H.A.M.'s] p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the offense, i n conjunction with the other relevant statutory factors." A.W.M. v . S t a t e , After considering circumstances offense, court the surrounding andthe other may p r o p e r l y when t h e r e "'an 627 S o . 2 d a t quoting 628 So. A.W.M. v . S t a t e , Section the offense, the the j u v e n i l e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h a t thetransfer indicating e x c e l l e n t candidate B.L.S. v . S t a t e , facts underlying relevant statutory factors, a juvenile order i s evidence 1154. that f o r treatment 2 d 1034, of thejuvenile the j u v e n i l e would be and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . ' " 1 0 3 6 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 627 S o . 2 d a t 12-15-203(b), A l a . Code even 1975 1993), 1154. provides: "The j u v e n i l e c o u r t j u d g e s h a l l c o n d u c t a h e a r i n g o n a l l motions f o r the purpose o f d e t e r m i n i n g whether i t i s i n t h e best i n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d o r t h e p u b l i c t o grant t h e [transfer] motion. Only i f t h e r e a r e no r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t o b e l i e v e t h e c h i l d 7 CR-09-1517 i s committable t o an i n s t i t u t i o n , department, or agency for individuals with an intellectual d i s a b i l i t y o r m e n t a l i l l n e s s , may t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t judge order the case transferred for criminal prosecution." Here, the juvenile "reasonable court grounds determined to b e l i e v e [H.A.M. was] institution, department, intellectual consider the Section of factors agency in § for of to from factors "(1) "(2) record of "(3) of whether juvenile the The a motion to an with an Thus, she went outlines cases no on 12-15-203(d) court i n c l u d i n g the r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s the t r i a l Those were individuals 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 0 3 ( d ) , A l a . Code 1975, transfer determining there commitable d i s a b i l i t y or mental i l l n e s s . " to or that to criminal c o u r t may transfer the should terms court, consider in be granted. include: nature of The extent the the nature response of "(4) The of past the child of the treatment to the nature of prior efforts and delinquency the nature p h y s i c a l and mental efforts. Demeanor. "(5) nature alleged offense. child. The and present maturity of extent the and child. 8 the CR-09-1517 "(6) The requiring interests that of the c h i l d t h e community be p l a c e d under and of the legal child restraint or discipline." The j u v e n i l e c o u r t n e e d n o t make a s p e c i f i c each of the s i xf a c t o r s Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 . I f t h e t r a n s f e r r i n g factors is judge states, these In the present factors. Crim. complies App. C.C. v. with the rules. J.S.A. 1993) State, finding 586 1 01 8 , juvenile 1020 ( A l a . court states that a l l s i x then i t s order 615 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 1 [judge] need n o t make ( A l a . Crim. a the appellate courts c a n make specific t o be c o n s i d e r e d b u t h i s o r d e r must t h a t a l l t h e f a c t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d , statutory requirements a l l of v . S t a t e , 419 S o . 2 d 2 1 9 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) . " ) . § 12-15-34(d)[now § 12-15-203(d)], that So. 2d as t o e a c h o f t h e s i x f a c t o r s some s t a t e m e n t i t s order S e e E x p a r t e A n o n y m o u s , 466 S o . 2 d 81 v. S t a t e , ("The then t h e order by t h e j u v e n i l e o f § 12-15-34(d) have been c o n s i d e r e d , 1984); Gulledge also court states that a l l s i x r e v e a l s , t h a t she c o n s i d e r e d App. 1991) ( " I f a t r a n s f e r r i n g factors (Ala. and t h e r e b y case, as t o u n d e r §12-15-203(d), o f §12-15-203(d) h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d , sufficient. See t o be c o n s i d e r e d finding a determination under contain i n order that the h a v e b e e n m e t . T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 507 S o . 9 CR-09-1517 2d 1034 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1987). I f the t r a n s f e r r i n g court states that a l l s i x f a c t o r s of § 12-15-34(d)[now § 12-15-203(d)] been considered, then i t s order Here, t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s all record delinquent mischief on reveals a prior placed on p r o b a t i o n school. circuit juvenile court the each. H.A.M. the law."). she c o n s i d e r e d (C. 72-73.) had been adjudicated f o r third-degree school. and, f o r Forthis a time, his prior criminal o f f e n s e , he transferred to an a d j u d i c a t i o n may n o t t o be w e i g h e d h e a v i l y t o w a r d a t r a n s f e r i t nonetheless i n determining may b e c o n s i d e r e d whether by t h e t o t r a n s f e r a case t o court. The nature court, with stated that occasion Although have been o f a n a t u r e circuit that committed a t themiddle alternative to ordered the statutory factors, l i s t i n g The was complies have record also contains of the alleged offense. offense exhibits was a h e i n o u s revealed Beretta handgun, head. Thus, adequately that H.A.M. causing the nature supports act. detailed Defense shot the victim wound about t h e conceded testimony court's that and m a t e r i a l with on t h e b a c k the present the juvenile 10 counsel Oral a fatal of evidence a .22 ofthe alleged offense transfer of the CR-09-1517 i n s t a n t case t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t u n d e r §12-25-203(d)(1), A l a . Code 1975. This Crim. court, App. i n B.L.S. v. stated that 1993), State, 628 although So. 2d 1034 ( A l a . the nature of the o f f e n s e a l o n e may n o t s u p p o r t a t r a n s f e r o r d e r , t h e " ' j u v e n i l e court s h o u l d examine t h e f a c t s underlying the alleged and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e j u v e n i l e ' s in that offense, along with the other five 592 S o . 2 d 6 4 7 , 650 So. 2 d 1288 (Ala.Cr.App. (Ala.Cr.App. 1991); 1993).'" participation factors Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 5 - 3 4 ( d ) [ n o w § 1 2 - 1 5 - 2 0 3 ( d ) ] . offense of A l a . N.D.T. v . S t a t e , J.S.A. v. S t a t e , 615 628 S o . 2 d a t 1 0 3 6 , q u o t i n g A.W.M., 627 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 5 4 . Similarly, i n Ex 1991), the Alabama charge alone can youthful-offender present case. parte Supreme not Farrell, Court support status. The a same 591 stated So. that 2d 444 ( A l a . the criminal judicial ruling denying rationale applies to the The C o u r t e x p l a i n e d : "We a r e n o t s a y i n g t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n on w h i c h a c h a r g e i s b a s e d c a n n o t b e , i n itself, a sufficient reason f o r denying youthful o f f e n d e r s t a t u s ; t o t h e c o n t r a r y , we h o l d t h a t t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n on w h i c h a c h a r g e i s b a s e d may, a l o n e , b e a s u f f i c i e n t r e a s o n f o r d e n y i n g y o u t h f u l o f f e n d e r s t a t u s . For example, i f a minor i s charged w i t h f i r s t degree a s s a u l t f o r b e a t i n g an 11 CR-09-1517 e l d e r l y person nearly to death w i t h a b a s e b a l l b a t , t h e n t h e n a t u r e o f t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n on w h i c h t h e f i r s t degree a s s a u l t charge i s based c o u l d be, i n i t s e l f , a s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r p r o p e r l y denying a p e t i t i o n f o r youthful offender status, although the f i r s t degree a s s a u l t charge i n and o f i t s e l f c o u l d n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r d e n y i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n . I f , i n t h i s case, Janet had had the p i s t o l , the n a t u r e of t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n on w h i c h t h e c h a r g e was based might have been i n i t s e l f a s u f f i c i e n t reason f o r denying her youthful offender p e t i t i o n , although the f i r s t degree r o b b e r y charge i n and of i t s e l f c o u l d n o t be t h e b a s i s f o r d e n y i n g t h a t p e t i t i o n . " 591 So. 2d a t 449. Additionally, considered, interests as the j u v e n i l e court's order suggests that i t i t had the of t h e community" s h o u l d be t r e a t e d discretion to i n determining as murder r a t h e r than supports The weight this that the "best this as an a c t o f d e l i n q u e n c y , f u l f i l l i n g §12-15-203(d)(6), record do, matter juvenile A l a . Code 1975. finding. t o be accorded t o each statutory factor other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n determining whether a j u v e n i l e be for transferred from the j u v e n i l e p r o s e c u t i o n does circumstances balancing for The not involve numerical and w e i g h i n g court comparison; tallying rather p r o c e s s , a n d one s t a t u t o r y 12 should to the c i r c u i t t h e mere and court of the i t is factor a may CR-09-1517 outweigh State, the remaining this considered compelled case, t o make findings into as w e l l 507 So. of fact factors i t s ruling based account a s H.A.M.'s 2d 1034 the j u v e n i l e court court to circuit court maturity, that o r d e r i n g t h e t r a n s f e r from for criminal whether transfer. Here, t h e r e c o r d included testimony the t r a n s f e r r i n g court to grant must the motion to by t h e l i c e n s e d H.A.M. f o r t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t ' s o f w h e t h e r H.A.M.'s d e m e a n o r a n d l e v e l o f m e n t a l precluded found prosecution. both p h y s i c a l and mental, i s i n determining He I t made a l lthe s t a t u t o r y consider maturity v. t o H.A.M.'s c l a i m of the factors determination of the transferring the one p s y c h o l o g i s t who h a d e v a l u a t e d of the Taylor 1987). behind d i d not consider juvenile but safety. App. that i t particularly interests We f i n d no m e r i t as r e q u i r e d by l a w , b e f o r e stated a n d was personal factors, Thus, t h e c h i l d ' s order the best ( A l a . Crim. court. N.D.T. v . on t h e s e v e r i t y as t o t h e r e a s o n i n g case t o t h e c i r c u i t factors. App. 1991). the juvenile court's and t a k i n g State, Crim. a l l s i xstatutory community, that statutory 592 S o . 2 d 1 0 3 4 ( A l a . In crime five that t r a n s f e r of h i s case t o t h e c i r c u i t H.A.M. was 13 competent, emotionally court. and CR-09-1517 intellectually, supported In child stand reaching as court court an adult. transfer i t s determination to the c i r c u i t factor. trial the j u v e n i l e court's transferring its to how on a m o t i o n much to transfer a a s an a d u l t , t h e weight to give each F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e t r a n s f e r r i n g c o u r t may r e l y s o l e l y on independent determination of the j u v e n i l e ' s mental C.C. v . S t a t e , 586 S o . 2 d 1018 ( A l a . C r i m . r e m a n d , 591 S o . 2 d 156 more evidence order. f o r prosecution decides This (Ala. Crim. state. A p p . ) , on r e t u r n t o A p p . 1 9 9 1 ) . E v e n i f one o r of the s t a t u t o r y f a c t o r s supports keeping the c h i l d i n t h e j u v e n i l e s y s t e m , t h e j u v e n i l e c o u r t may t r a n s f e r t h e c h i l d for prosecution clear O.M. a s an a d u l t and c o n v i n c i n g v. State, 595 evidence So. (holding that the "clear proof applies transfer For court to i f the remaining the 2d supporting 5 1 4 , 526 factors provide the transfer. See (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e " standard of dispositional phase of a juvenile- proceeding). the foregoing reasons, t h e judgment of the j u v e n i l e i s due t o be a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. W e l c h , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , 14 and J o i n e r , 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.