Joseph Wesley Stroud 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 OCTOBER TERM, APPEALS 2010-2011 CR-10-0189 Joseph Wesley S t r o u d v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, appellant, offender, pleaded offender circuit Court Judge. The sex from J e f f e r s o n D i s t r i c t (DC-10-5966) court Joseph Wesley Stroud, a convicted sex g u i l t y t o f a i l i n g t o r e g i s t e r as a c o n v i c t e d pursuant t o § 13A-11-200, sentenced Stroud Ala. Code 1975. The to10 years' imprisonment; that CR-10-0189 sentence was split, a n d he was ordered to serve 18 m o n t h s i n jail, f o l l o w e d b y 2 y e a r s ' s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n . The court ordered victims' appeal record fund, indicates he had Stroud argued ("the raised $50 and fine, $39 $50 the crime restitution. in to This that, before CNA"), reserving § August i n a motion that the appeal, under which 15-20-20 et seq., that had been to dismiss, A l a . Code the Court 20th, Stroud denied 2010, 1975, would i s s u e s i n the motion today about that was the were t o d i s m i s s when a r g u m e n t , s t a t i n g : "We the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l he was recent to dismiss Stroud r e f e r e n c e d the motion filed that back on statute being that the r e g i s t r a t i o n statute 4-5.) contends charged unconstitutional Court's his guilty the " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o u r t . ( R . 4.) I n h i s m o t i o n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . " (R. On to appeal his constitutionality to reserve filed he e n t e r e d t h a t p o r t i o n s of t h e Community N o t i f i c a t i o n A c t unconstitutional. is a Stroud reserved h i s right d e n i e d by t h e c i r c u i t we pay followed. issues" like to compensation The plea, Stroud circuit as decision -- § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 , A l a . C o d e applied i n State 2 to him. Stroud v . Adams, [Ms. 1975 cites -¬ this CR-08-1728, CR-10-0189 November support 5, 2010] So. 3d ( A l a .Crim. o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n . I n Adams, this c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the r e g i s t r a t i o n § 15-20-22(a)(1), A l a . Code 1975. Stroud i n A d a m s , he i s h o m e l e s s ; he t o comply that the county the issue relating plea motion settled must and/or be argues § 13A-11-200(b), that, that, which with of h i s or her l e g a l r e s i d e n c e . " i s well in addressed the t h e r e f o r e , he a c o n v i c t e d sex o f f e n d e r " r e g i s t e r It an with Court 2010), requirement contained i n the defendant i s unable App. like asserts, requires the s h e r i f f of 1 " ' " i n the g u i l t y - p l e a context, to a defect occurring before the entry of both timely and objection preserved by a n d an a d v e r s e a ruling from specific the trial c o u r t and r e s e r v e d f o r a p p e a l b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f t h e p l e a . " ' " Treslar v. S t a t e , (emphasis 547 948 S o . 2 d 5 7 0 , 572 (Ala. o m i t t e d ) , q u o t i n g K n i g h t v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 5 ) , 913 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 505 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005) 936 S o . 2 d 5 4 4 , quoting i n turn Mitchell Crim. App. v. State, 2005). I n Adams, s u p r a , t h i s C o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n requirements o f t h e CNA coincide with the registration r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r sex o f f e n d e r s found i n § 13A-11-200, b u t t h e C o u r t d i d n o t e x t e n d i t s h o l d i n g i n Adams t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n t a i n e d i n § 13A-11-200. So. 3d a t . 1 3 CR-10-0189 In the instant case, Stroud both a c h a l l e n g e to the constitutionality the Stroud CNA. However, challenge 1975 -- to the the specific grounds grounds 880, and not 882 parte now of the (Ala. raises on 857 trial." Ex parte on appeal So. 2d Ex ( A l a . 2003), on appeal i s not State, 2d 750, 756 601 So. 2d preserve to an the t r i a l 213 (Ala. Crim. and presented.'" App. issue for appellate review, c o u r t by a t i m e l y and App. 99 (Ala. Crim. 4 1989). 1 995), time i t v. "'[T]o presented setting M c K i n n e y v. quoting has State, Pate 1 992). s p e c i f i c motion 654 95, quoting i t m u s t be thereof.'" 2d D i c k e y v. App. the s p e c i f i c grounds i n support So. App. because 2004), ( A l a . Crim. quoting f o r the f i r s t appellate review (Ala. Crim. 210, 717 is 526 on t i m e l y r a i s e d at t r i a l . ' " 7 94 Frith, settled that "'[a]n issue raised not been p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e d in error to is well to not restricted 793, 703, put of 2d It subject 2d his So. S t a t e , 570 So. grounds be Newsome v . 901 statement a l l not So. reserve "The waives will i s s u e s p r o p e r l y and Coulliette, and appeal. "'Review 1987). reserved o f § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code court at and of c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s of preserve objection trial assigned q u e s t i o n s and not constitutionality i s s u e he specified, did preserved out State, Brice v. CR-10-0189 State, 574 Stroud So. did 2d not constitutionality circuit court, Based 55, on 57 ( A l a . Crim. present of § nothing his claim 13A-11-200, i s preserved the foregoing, App. 1 990). regarding A l a . Code for this the c i r c u i t Because 1975, Court's court's the to the review. judgment i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Welch, P . J . , a n d Windom, J . , c o n c u r . Burke, J . , concurs Joiner, i n the result J . , concurs i n the BURKE, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g Joseph Wesley 11-200(b), Ala. information that in Stroud Code with opinion. result. result. pleaded 1975. He guilty had to v i o l a t i n g been charged § by stated: " J O S E P H WESLEY STROUD, a r e s i d e n t o f A l a b a m a , h a v i n g h e r e t o f o r e been c o n v i c t e d i n the C r i m i n a l C o u r t of Memphis, T e n n e s s e e f o r t h e o f f e n s e o f Rape i n t h e Second Degree, d i d k n o w i n g l y and w i l l f u l l y f a i l o r refuse to register his legal residence with the s h e r i f f of the county of h i s l e g a l residence, w i t h i n seven days of h i s r e l e a s e from l e g a l custody, in v i o l a t i o n of S e c t i o n 13A-11-200(b) of the C r i m i n a l Code o f A l a b a m a " (C. 16.) 5 13Aan CR-10-0189 During if the g u i l t y - p l e a p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e r e were any appeal, and reserve the that the 20th, 5.) 2010 The Stroud denied about trial would plea the like of to "The reservation. arguing sex CNA") he § asked reserve (R. to reserve "We filed would for like to filed b a c k on A u g u s t unconstitutional." i f t h e r e were any for appeal, (R. issues 4¬ that defense counsel entered the 5-6.) fact The and the t h a t I s t a t e d b e f o r e he same one was asked that statute is court trial the noted the 2 had that previously filed the a 30-page m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , s t a t u t o r y requirements are unconstitutional. for registration In the body of he c i t e d t h e A l a b a m a C o m m u n i t y N o t i f i c a t i o n A c t , codified was t h a t was statute being guilty offenders motion, responded: court i s s u e s i n t h e m o t i o n t h a t we today court again unconstitutional." Stroud counsel constitutional again responded: his i s s u e s that Stroud would l i k e defense Court the t r i a l a t § 15-20-20 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, convicted 13A-11-200(b) under address § 13A-11-200(b). registration Both the requirements by the ("the although CNA and for sex It s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t T h e S t a t e does not argue on a p p e a l t h a t S t r o u d d i d not p r o p e r l y p r e s e r v e and r e s e r v e h i s argument f o r a p p e a l . 2 6 CR-10-0189 offenders certain i n c l u d i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a sex o f f e n d e r a u t h o r i t i e s of h i s or her r e s i d e n c e imprisonment. Section 13A-11-200(b) part, that legal custody, r e g i s t e r with or her release a sex o f f e n d e r legal or residence within s u c h p e r s o n was 22(a)(1) agency 30 require in writing Director of address release his against at which part, of he or clearly informed 1967, date." Section that "[t]he sex Public she argument concerned him - i . e . , he the from such in case 15-20- responsible offender approved by Safety, will asserted was homeless, and, unconstitutional as thus, applied h i s arguments trial the the reside or l i v e of the § he of could to the actual upon the motion charge not comply with because he scheme is h i s reference to statutory Despite the t r i a l 7 in his 13A-11-200(b) entire t o him. placed court propriety that r e g i s t r a t i o n requirements CNA, 7, e l e c t r o n i c means the the following criminal adult Department pertinent " Stroud that the days September p r i o r to such by in from of the county of h i s seven after the or requires, the s h e r i f f in pertinent declare, physical days upon r e l e a s e upon h i s or h e r r e l e a s e within released states, shall "shall, notify court on notice that CR-10-0189 his challenge Alabama law applicable 38, 41 was to the charge pertaining to sexual to dissenting i n part) Ware's m o t i o n appeal sufficient court v. 715 1997) ('An trial court court with on court State, on 842 S o . 2 d i n part and language in on the notice o f any So. 2d 906, specific alleged opportunity notice to was of a p o t e n t i a l the opportunity o b j e c t i o n m u s t be an requirements " C e r t a i n l y , Ware's o b j e c t i o n a t t r i a l the t r i a l App. concerned in his brief account and h i s l a n g u a g e the t r i a l error. Finch residency into to put that and See Ware v . S t a t e , and t o a l l o w error him (Cobb, J . c o n c u r r i n g (taking to reconsider and s t a t i n g the offenders. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002) against 912 to correct ( A l a . Crim. enough t o p u t t h e error correct and p r o v i d e any error the i f necessary.')."); E x p a r t e R.D.W., 773 S o . 2 d 4 2 6 , 4 2 8 - 2 9 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2000) ("These g r o u n d s , t a k e n t o g e t h e r w i t h R.D.W.'s written request, preserving this the court trial error correct 1991); and were issue on thereby sufficiently specific for appellate review, notice provided i t . See E x p a r t e Ex p a r t e McCall, of the 594 they put substance of opportunity an the of alleged to 594 S o . 2 d 1 1 9 6 , 1200 ( A l a . So. 2d 8 because court that Pettway, f o r purposes 628, 631 ( A l a . 1991); Ex CR-10-0189 parte W a s h i n g t o n , 448 So. 2d parte Works, 2d 1056, modified 640 on requiring application a appellate So. specific review 404, 406 1058 for put the to opportunity case jury.') i s submitted Thus, 572 the that the and his argument that for appeal. (Ala. Crim. g u i l t y - p l e a form c o n t a i n i n g the right court Ex to LaPointe, that the that LaPointe appeal In So. to "record the Ex 3d preserve 926 2d properly the and youthful-offender parte Hill, [Ms. (Ala. 2009), the issue of an on issue notice for of the i t before the judge understood was preserved State, court's 948 Stroud's below So. and 2d signature 570, on been r e s e r v e d 1060 trial timely a reserved suppress i n d i c a t e d that 1055, evidenc[ed] had purpose the n o t a t i o n t h a t T r e s l a r i s s u e had So. as to c o r r e c t (trial appeal h i s motion to u n d e r s t o o d t h a t the parte trial 2005) (opinion judge Compare T r e s l a r v. App. 1994 ) "). I believe objection reserved to Ex preserve trial a l l e g e d e r r o r , g i v i n g an also ('The (Ala. rehearing) objection i s to ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; see the for appeal); ( A l a . 2005) (holding judge's understanding preserved his September 4, right to issue"). 1071635, this whether court he 9 held should that Hill have been 2009] had failed allowed to CR-10-0189 withdraw h i s g u i l t y sentence Alabama him plea due t o t h e t r i a l i n accordance Supreme C o u r t with reversed the that court's plea failure to agreement. determination, The stating: "Although H i l l d i d not i n c l u d e p r e c i s e language i n his motion to the e f f e c t that a plea agreement b e t w e e n h i m a n d t h e S t a t e e x i s t e d , he nonetheless r e f e r r e d t o s u c h an a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n h i m a n d t h e State regarding the sentencing standards, i . e . , ' [ t ] h e S t a t e and defense had agreed t h a t a sentence under the sentencing standards, t o be s e r v e d i n Community Corrections, i f [Hill] were eligible, w o u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e . ' We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h i s g e n e r a l language i n H i l l ' s May 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 , m o t i o n clearly p l a c e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t on n o t i c e t h a t H i l l w i s h 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 b a s e d on t h e e x i s t e n c e o f some a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n h i m a n d t h e S t a t e regarding sentencing standards. C o n s e q u e n t l y , we h o l d that Hill's timely filed motion was sufficient to preserve f o r review the issue whether a plea agreement d i d i n f a c t e x i s t between H i l l and t h e S t a t e . See B a g l e y v . S t a t e , 681 S o . 2 d 2 6 2 , 264 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1995) ( l a n g u a g e i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s motion, although not p r e c i s e , 'placed the t r i a l court on n o t i c e that [the appellant] wanted t o w i t h d r a w h i s p l e a b e c a u s e [ h e ] was o b j e c t i n g t o n o t being sentenced i n accordance with the purported plea agreement')." So. In 3d a t the . present case, the trial court was S t r o u d ' s a r g u m e n t a n d n o t e d t h a t he h a d p r o p e r l y and had r e s e r v e d of the nature to i t f o r appeal. dismiss. The t r i a l of preserved i t c o u r t was a l s o o f t h e a r g u m e n t when i t d e n i e d 10 aware Stroud's aware motion CR-10-0189 On appeal, requirement applied Stroud argues only t h a t Alabama's residency- s t a t u t e s f o r s e x o f f e n d e r s a r e u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l as t o him because, he says, he i s homeless. 3 However, b e l i e v e t h a t , u n l i k e t h e h o m e l e s s d e f e n d a n t i n S t a t e v. [ C R - 0 8 - 1 7 2 8 , N o v e m b e r 5, 2 0 1 0 ] 2010), which argument, overcome trial Stroud cites of Stroud dismiss stringent a was that he "was Mr. homeless person. present was support in under the P r i m a r i l y Mr. his sufficient statement to lived App. find of evidence attaches only indication the Adams, (Ala. Crim. correctness that unable Stroud 3d appeal The homeless requirements result, on to presumption the failed court's decision. that As Stroud So. i n the housing lived the record i n h i s motion Birmingham, Stroud to to meeting Community N o t i f i c a t i o n in I Alabama near the to the Act. as a railroad In h i s motion to dismiss, Stroud a l s o argued that A l a b a m a ' s s t a t u t o r y scheme p e r t a i n i n g t o s e x u a l offenders violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U n i t e d States Constitution and was, therefore, unconstitutional; is e x c e s s i v e l y p u n i t i v e i n r e l a t i o n to i t s purpose; impinges on rights to travel freely and to associate; is u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y v a g u e ; u n d u l y r e s t r i c t s s e x o f f e n d e r s as o p p o s e d t o o t h e r f e l o n y o f f e n d e r s ; and u n d u l y r e s t r i c t s h i s r i g h t t o a f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p . He d o e s n o t a r g u e t h e s e i s s u e s on a p p e a l ; t h u s , t h e y a r e w a i v e d . R u s s e l l v . S t a t e , 954 So. 2 d 1 1 2 5 , 1126 n. 1 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2005). 3 11 CR-10-0189 tracks in request a hearing could downtown not have Birmingham." or provide lived with B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e indication that Stroud's motion a motion (C. 17.) any e v i d e n c e Stroud indicating a f a m i l y member o r before the court the t r i a l abused t o d i s m i s s a n i n d i c t m e n t was e r r o r that he elsewhere. c o u r t , t h e r e i s no i t sdiscretion t o d i s m i s s . "Whether a t r i a l d i d not in denying court's denial of i s reviewed under an a b u s e - o f - d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w . S e e R a p e r v . S t a t e , 584 S o . 2 d 544 So. 2 d 3 6 1 , 362 I (Ala. Crim. (Ala. Crim. believe that Stroud App. 1991)." App. Hunter v. S t a t e , 867 2003). preserved h i s argument below and r e s e r v e d h i s argument f o r a p p e a l , b u t I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e t r i a l court to d i d not abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n dismiss therefore, as to I concur the issue i n the i n denying pursued result. 12 by Stroud's Stroud on motion appeal:

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.