Ex parte Rodney Wayne Patterson (In re: State of Alabama v. Rodney Wayne Patterson)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

RE103/18/2011 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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-10-0334 Ex p a r t e Rodney Wayne Patterson PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (In r e : S t a t e o f Alabama v . Rodney Wayne Lawrence C i r c u i t (CC-10-84) PER Patterson) Court CURIAM. The petition reinstate petitioner, Rodney fora o f habeas writ h i soriginal bail, Wayne Patterson, corpus which filed requesting had been that revoked. this we In O c t o b e r 2 0 0 9 , P a t t e r s o n was a r r e s t e d f o r a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r ; h i s CR-10-0334 bail was set at $75, 000. In January 2010, Patterson i n d i c t e d f o r a t t e m p t e d m u r d e r a n d h i s b a i l , w h i c h he h a d remained the Patterson's been bail charged for the same. be with In May 2010, revoked because, another attempted offense murder the i t argued, while charge, State he and a release had b e e n t h a t he n o t engage i n any On 13, 2010, Pride May bail. of November 12, 2010, r e c k l e s s endangerment for to On Judge the r e v o c a t i o n have November This his 15, 2010, pretrial charge pretrial Judge formed bail. free he of habeas is entitled bail of his Patterson's found "not formed After had activity. a guilty" the basis t h e n moved hearing Tompkins d e n i e d P a t t e r s o n ' s that on criminal Patterson reinstated. that Patterson condition that paid, moved revoked was the charge for a writ asserts b a i l because, that bail petition Patterson -- of h i s p r e t r i a l original original 1 Tompkins Patterson was was corpus to remain on motion. followed. free on he a r g u e s , he h a s b e e n a c q u i t t e d o f t h e the basis for the revocation of his bail. T h e b a s i s f o r t h i s m i s d e m e a n o r c h a r g e was t h a t P a t t e r s o n a l l e g e d l y engaged i n r e c k l e s s c o n d u c t by " d r i v i n g b e h i n d [the v i c t i m ] a t a h i g h r a t e o f s p e e d as i f t o r u n h e r o f f t h e road." A f t e r a bench t r i a l i n the d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Judge Angela Terry found P a t t e r s o n "not guilty." 1 2 CR-10-0334 "The purposes of b a i l are to secure the accused's a t t e n d a n c e , and a v o i d t h e imprisonment o f persons still entitled to a presumption of i n n o c e n c e , among o t h e r s . "Since i ti s not the purpose of the c r i m i n a l law to confine a person accused of crime before conviction, b a i l i s allowed i n recognition of the p r e s u m p t i o n o f innocence u n t i l g u i l t i s p r o v e d , and is a necessary corollary to the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c o n c e p t t h a t p e r s o n s may b e i m p r i s o n e d o n l y a f t e r conviction. B a i l i s i n t e n d e d t o e n a b l e an a c c u s e d to remain out o f j a i l u n t i l t h e next p r o c e e d i n g i n the case, or until there has been a final disposition of the accusation, and t o p r e p a r e a defense. B a i l also r e l i e v e s the state of the burden of detaining possibly innocent persons pending trial." 8 C.J.S. Bail 'presumption interest (2010). of innocence of the State that accusation 647 §6 a g a i n s t him.'" (Tex. App. "Bail of the accused the accused pretrial bail to balance the and t h e c o m p e l l i n g appear Ex p a r t e Henson, t o answer t h e 131 S.W.3d 6 4 5 , 2004). U n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , an a c c u s e d to operates i n a l l noncapital has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right cases. " A r t i c l e I , § 16, A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1 9 0 1 , provides: 'That a l l persons shall, before conviction, be b a i l a b l e by s u f f i c i e n t sureties, except for capital offenses, when t h e p r o o f i s e v i d e n t o r t h e p r e s u m p t i o n g r e a t ; and t h a t e x c e s s i v e b a i l s h a l l n o t i n a n y c a s e be r e q u i r e d . ' This Court h a s i n t e r p r e t e d § 16 a s p r o v i d i n g a n a b s o l u t e r i g h t to b a i l i n a l l n o n c a p i t a l c a s e s . S t a t e v. B l a k e , 642 S o . 2 d 9 5 9 , 968 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o , A l a . 3 CR-10-0334 Code 1 975, § 1 5 - 1 3 - 2 ; B r o w n v . S t a t e , 615 S o . 2 d 1306 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 3 ) ; a n d Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , 687 S o . 2 d 222 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 6 ) . " Ex p a r t e C o l b e r t , 805 So. 2d 687, 688 ( A l a . 2001). §15- other than 13-3, A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h those specified i n s u b s e c t i o n (a) o f S e c t i o n 1 5 - 1 3 - 3 c a s e s ] a defendant a matter We of i s , before conviction, entitled [capital to b a i l as right is right." have recognized subject to f o r f e i t u r e 814 2 d 302 So. s t a t e s : "In a l l cases See that this constitutional by t h e d e f e n d a n t . ( A l a . Crim. App. 2001), I n Ex p a r t e we Fleming, stated: " [ A ] d e f e n d a n t may f o r f e i t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o p r e t r i a l b a i l b y h i s c o n d u c t w h i l e o u t on b a i l . S e e S h a b a z z v . S t a t e , 440 S o . 2 d 1200 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ) . I n S h a b a z z , we s t a t e d : "'The Constitution of the State of Alabama p r o v i d e s "That a l lpersons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital o f f e n s e s , when t h e p r o o f i s e v i d e n t o r t h e p r e s u m p t i o n g r e a t ; and t h a t e x c e s s i v e b a i l s h a l l n o t i n any c a s e be r e q u i r e d . " A l a . Const. a r t . I, § 16. Additionally, § 1 5 - 1 3 - 2 , Code o f A l a b a m a 1975, s t a t e s t h a t "In a l l cases other than those s p e c i f i e d i n subsection (a) of section 15-13-3, a defendant i s , before c o n v i c t i o n , entitled t o b a i l as a m a t t e r o f r i g h t . " S u b s e c t i o n (a) o f § 1 5 - 1 3 - 3 d e a l s w i t h c a p i t a l c a s e s . The c o u r t s o f t h i s S t a t e h a v e c o n s i s t e n t l y c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t e and constitutional provision a s e n s u r i n g t o an a c c u s e d an 4 CR-10-0334 absolute right to b a i l . Brakefield v. S t a t e , 2 6 9 A l a . 4 3 3 , 113 S o . 2 d 669 (1 9 5 9 ) ; H o l m a n v . W i l l i a m s , 2 5 6 A l a . 1 5 7 , 53 S o . 2 d 751 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ; S p r i n k l e v . S t a t e , 368 S o . 2 d 554 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1978), w r i t quashed, 368 S o . 2 d 565 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . Although the court found the r i g h t t o b a i l on a n o n c a p i t a l c a s e t o b e a b s o l u t e , e v e n when t h e r e h a d p r e v i o u s l y been a f o r f e i t u r e of b a i l on t h e same c h a r g e , i t a l s o s a i d t h a t an a c c u s e d c o u l d f o r f e i t h i sconstitutional right to b a i l i f i t appeared t h a t he h a d d o n e s o t h r o u g h affirmative evidence. This court opines that engaging in felonious criminal a c t i v i t y w h i l e o u t on b a i l i s a n e x a m p l e o f s u c h a f f i r m a t i v e e v i d e n c e . Mere f a i l u r e t o appear i n c o u r t would not s u f f i c e . ' "440 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 1 - 0 2 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . C f : A l a b a m a courts have recognized that the following c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s may be w a i v e d : ( r i g h t t o counsel at t r i a l ) ( C l e m o n s v . S t a t e , 720 S o . 2 d 985 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 525 U.S. 1 1 2 4 , 119 S . C t . 9 0 7 , 142 L . E d . 2 d 906 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ) ; ( r i g h t t o c o u n s e l a n d t o c o n d u c t own d e f e n s e ) ( E x p a r t e A r t h u r , 711 S o . 2 d 1097 ( A l a . 1997)); (right against self-incrimination) ( E x p a r t e G r a d d i c k , 501 S o . 2 d 444 ( A l a . 1986)); (right to trial by jury) ( A r r i n g t o n v . S t a t e , 773 S o . 2 d 500 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2000)); ( r i g h t t o speedy t r i a l ) ( W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , 641 S o . 2 d 1 3 0 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . "The p h i l o s o p h y e x p r e s s e d i n S h a b a z z h a s b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o R u l e 7 . 3 ( a ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., a n d R u l e 7 . 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P., p r o m u l g a t e d b y t h e Alabama Supreme Court. Rule 7.3(a) lists the mandatory c o n d i t i o n s o f r e l e a s e , once b a i l has been 5 CR-10-0334 set. Those defendant mandatory conditions require that a "'(1) A p p e a r t o a n s w e r and t o s u b m i t to the orders and process of the court having j u r i s d i c t i o n of the case; "'(2) Refrain criminal offense; "'(3) Not without leave of "'(4) change of 814 So. 2d Rule at from depart court; committing from and P r o m p t l y n o t i f y the address." any the court state of any 303-04. 7.5(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., provides, in pertinent part: " I f , a f t e r a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r s s e t f o r t h i n t h e motion, the c o u r t f i n d s t h a t the defendant r e l e a s e d has not c o m p l i e d w i t h o r has v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s of r e l e a s e , or t h a t m a t e r i a l m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s or omissions of fact were made in securing the defendant's release, the court may modify the conditions or revoke the release. If a ground a l l e g e d f o r r e v o c a t i o n of the r e l e a s e i s t h a t the d e f e n d a n t r e l e a s e d has v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n u n d e r R u l e 7 . 3 ( a ) ( 2 ) by c o m m i t t i n g a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e , o r that there was a misrepresentation or omission concerning other charges pending against the defendant released, the court may modify the c o n d i t i o n s of r e l e a s e or revoke the r e l e a s e , i f the court finds that there i s probable cause (or i f t h e r e has a l r e a d y been a f i n d i n g of p r o b a b l e cause) to b e l i e v e t h a t the defendant r e l e a s e d committed the other o f f e n s e or o f f e n s e s charged." 6 CR-10-0334 (Emphasis added.) C r i m . P., an note that absolute believe that § while Ala. 3148. pretrial the rule R. This bail p e r s o n has on "[t]he i s not release Crim. i f there The operate as i s probable cause to while provides is on that "probable federal to i s patterned committed a Federal, " R. offense P., section Ala. intended where t h e r e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d an 7.5(b), U.S.C.A. C o m m i t t e e Comments t o R u l e 7.5, d e n i a l of r e l e a s e the Rule revoke The statute after a § 18 court cause State, release." to believe or l o c a l further may crime states: " I f there i s probable cause to b e l i e v e t h a t , while on r e l e a s e , t h e p e r s o n c o m m i t t e d a F e d e r a l , State, or l o c a l felony, a rebuttable presumption arises t h a t no c o n d i t i o n o r c o m b i n a t i o n o f c o n d i t i o n s will a s s u r e t h a t the p e r s o n w i l l not pose a danger to the s a f e t y o f any o t h e r p e r s o n o r t h e c o m m u n i t y . " 2 18 U.S.C.A. Bail in § 143 the § (2010). defendant's defendant to presumption." (10th 3148(b) Cir. come (emphasis "Once t h e court forward United added). See presumption ... and with States v. i t some also arises, is 880 the C.J.S. ball incumbent evidence Cook, 8 F.2d to is on the rebut the 1158, 1162 1989). The federal statute provides that p r e s u m p t i o n " a r i s e s o n l y when t h e a c c u s e d w i t h a new felony. 2 7 the "rebuttable has been c h a r g e d CR-10-0334 Other of a bail charge state c o u r t s have a d d r e s s e d revocation that was the continued when t h e r e h a s b e e n the basis validity an a c q u i t t a l f o r the revocation. on t h e Massachusetts law p r o v i d e s : " I f a p e r s o n i s on r e l e a s e p e n d i n g t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n o f a p r i o r c h a r g e , a n d t h e c o u r t ... f i n d s p r o b a b l e cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p e r s o n has committed a crime d u r i n g s a i d p e r i o d of r e l e a s e , the c o u r t s h a l l then determine ... w h e t h e r t h e r e l e a s e of said person w i l l s e r i o u s l y e n d a n g e r any p e r s o n o r t h e community. ... I f t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s that the r e l e a s e o f s a i d p e r s o n w i l l s e r i o u s l y e n d a n g e r any p e r s o n o r t h e c o m m u n i t y ... t h e c o u r t may revoke b a i l on t h e p r i o r c h a r g e .... S a i d o r d e r s h a l l s t a t e in writing the reasons therefor and shall be r e v i e w e d by t h e c o u r t upon t h e a c q u i t t a l o f t h e person, or the d i s m i s s a l o f , any of the cases involved." Mass. Gen. L a w s c h . 276 only language of § 58 (2006) (emphasis i n the statute pertaining added). "The t o any t y p e o f r e v i e w a revocation order i s l i m i t e d , requiring review ('shall be reviewed') 'upon t h e a c q u i t t a l o f t h e p e r s o n , o r t h e d i s m i s s a l of, any o f t h e cases Mass. Commonwealth v. Pagan, 3 1 5 , 3 2 1 , 837 N . E . 2 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 9 The 336, involved.'" 339, Vermont Supreme 388 A . 2 d 435, Court 438 (2005). i n State (1978), has v. Mecier, 136 stated: " I n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s ... i f t h e e a r l i e r e x t o r t i o n case i s d i s m i s s e d or the defendant i s a c q u i t t e d of the c h a r g e , t h e d e f e n d a n t i s t h e n e n t i t l e d t o an 8 445 Vt. CR-10-0334 immediate r e v i e w of h i s b a i l s i t u a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to the present charge. The court then involved w o u l d h a v e t h e u s u a l d u t y t o make e v e r y e f f o r t t o r e s o l v e t h e b a i l a p p l i c a t i o n i n f a v o r o f some s o r t o f r e l e a s e , no m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n n e c e s s a r y . ... " Here, the Patterson basis for the not dismissed charge was clear preference hold that bail reinstated. was acquitted revocation or of See the his is entitled S h a b a z z v. charge pretrial n o l l e prossed. for pretrial bail Patterson of 3 that bail Given formed -- the Alabama's i n a l l n o n c a p i t a l cases, t o have h i s o r i g i n a l State, 440 So. 2d 1200 we $75,000 (Ala. We r e a l i z e t h a t " [ a ] v e r d i c t of a c q u i t t a l i s not an a f f i r m a t i v e f i n d i n g of i n n o c e n c e or t h a t a l l of the accused's testimony i s t r u e , but i t i s merely a d e c l a r a t i o n t h a t the j u r y was not s a t i s f i e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt about the d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t . " 23A C . J . S . C r i m i n a l Law § 1903 (2010). H o w e v e r , we do not believe that the law applicable to probation-revocation proceedings a p p l i e s i n t h i s case. We have s t a t e d : "By v i r t u e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t b u r d e n s o f proof p l a c e d on t h e S t a t e i n 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 s , i t i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e t h a t p r o b a t i o n may be r e v o k e d b a s e d on a s e t o f f a c t s w h e r e a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on t h e same s e t o f f a c t s cannot stand. '[A] proceeding to revoke p r o b a t i o n i s not a c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n . C a r l t o n v . S t a t e , 507 So. 2d 998, 1002 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1986). A probation-revocation proceeding i s a postconviction proceeding, i . e . , i t occurs after conviction and sentence. Here, Patterson stands c o n v i c t e d o f no o f f e n s e , a n d h e , u n d e r t h e l a w , i s p r e s u m e d i n n o c e n t of the attempted-murder charge. 3 9 CR-10-0334 Crim. App. 1983). habeas corpus Accordingly, i s hereby continued attempt. concurring specially. decision t o harass the State t o note the circuit to the reinstatement Patterson avoid contact seeking that t o have asserts that with that court bail from I do n o t r e a d adding, our as a the requirement the victim. revoked murder I do n o t r e a d c o n d i t i o n o r as p r e c l u d i n g Patterson's Patterson of the alleged of the b a i l , such a c o n d i t i o n a l r e a d y e x i s t s , invalidating I n i t s r e s p o n s e t o Rodney the victim specially as p r e c l u d i n g condition that petition, I write of and Burke, J J . , concur. Joiner, opinion. Windom, J . , d i s s e n t s , I concur i n t h e main o p i n i o n . has for a writ ISSUED. Welch, P . J . ,and Kellum J., concurs s p e c i a l l y , with with opinion. Wayne P a t t e r s o n ' s petition granted. P E T I T I O N GRANTED; WRIT JOINER, Judge, this Moreover, i f o u r d e c i s i o n as the State from forviolating that condition. WINDOM, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully that disagree with the majority's R o d n e y Wayne P a t t e r s o n i s entitled 10 to the determination reinstatement CR-10-0334 of h i s o r i g i n a l believe the that basis bail. of his cause forfeited his '[t]hat proof bail § right a l l persons App. not 1 983). committed See to b a i l right bail accused in 1202. App. State, as that a offense 7.5(b), a of not formed lack and, Ala. of thus, R. Alabama c o n v i c t i o n , be capital Crim. § So. 15-13-2, 2d and Ala. 1200, Ala. defendant of 1 975, his that accused 11 of an So. 2d may a l l Section conviction, to Shabazz, 814 Crim. ("In ... [ i s ] absolute, Fleming, the art. I, "Although constitutional right criminal activity (holding (a) by excessive (Ala. i s , before case when Const. 1201 Code right."). non-capital bailable that specified in subsection a provides offenses, required.' 440 a l s o Ex p a r t e 2001) State for a matter forfeit ... See new presumption great; cases], on [may] engaging charge establishes Rule before c a s e be than those entitled the except also [capital to the the See of shall, i n any 15-13-3 Crim. revocation to b a i l . or the S h a b a z z v. cases other at he sureties, shall of b e l o w , I do I must r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s s e n t . i s evident 16." acquittal Constitution sufficient in detail bail that Therefore, "The discussed Patterson's probable P. As ... bail 440 302, the [by] So. 304 forfeit an 2d (Ala. his CR-10-0334 right t o b a i l b y c o m m i t t i n g a new Crim. P., establishes bail-revocation preceding i n w h i c h an i n d i v i d u a l i s a c c u s e d of forfeiting bail Specifically, Rule pertinent part, the release condition ... hearing, i f the has believe offense a that court the a individual was cause. parte Ex new ... a alleged for revocation of released revoke there finding the arrested or of the f o r a new Bumpers, 854 that after a cause (or cause) to the other Consequently, i f the court 2d release added.) the criminal probable offense So. a committed to b e l i e v e i f violated i s probable individual's bail offense has committing (Emphasis cause P., offense. in released an new states, by finds that i s probable committed App. 7.3(a)(2) been applied a Crim. charged." revoke there R. defendant or offenses may Ala. may be committing defendant court already that court the Rule the by " [ i ] fa ground i s that under there 7.5(b), that offense, if to to A l a . R. a right standard R u l e 7.5, in the the offense). court the individual finds based 627 , 630 finds on that the probable (Ala. Crim. 2003). A c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n , on t h e o t h e r beyond a reasonable doubt" that 12 the hand, r e q u i r e s defendant "proof committed the CR-10-0334 criminal offense. P r o b a b l e cause beyond 543, Unlike proof the crime 397 U.S. 2006) (citations i f "a r e a s o n a b l e not a prima facie of probable doubt, committed "Only probable believe it." Id. the p r o b a b i l i t y , of c r i m i n a l cause." quotations [ p e r s o n ] would omitted). showing, 968 S o . 2 d and beyond a reasonable and q u o t a t i o n s (1970). standard [than t h a t ] of proof o c c u r r e d and t h a t t h e defendant (citations 3 5 8 , 361 S t a t e v. Montgomery, App. i s established standard "strict doubt." ( A l a .Crim. omitted). and i s a less a reasonable 550 cause In re Winship, activity Id. (citations i s the and q u o t a t i o n s omitted). Because the showing necessary t o revoke bail (probable cause) i s l e s s s t r i n g e n t than the showing necessary t o c o n v i c t an individual doubt), I believe Patterson's there of was that outcome the that no p r o b a b l e Courts outcome criminal acquittal offense. the a of another two p r o c e e d i n g s (beyond a the majority i n c o r r e c t l y on t h e new cause i n this of offense one offense to revoke State have proceeding proceeding 13 by that establishes that f o r that consistently involving are governed holds his bail will reasonable not new recognized dictate the t h e same m a t t e r when different standards of CR-10-0334 proof. For that reason, c a n n o t be r e s j u d i c a t a to the actions different, City See are in a civil different, and a d i f f e r e n t o f Gadsden v. Head, also Morrison (1957) " [ a ] judgment (citing action the standard in a criminal because rules of the p a r t i e s evidence of proof 267 A l a . the differences are i s involved." 429 S o . 2 d 1 0 0 5 , 1007 v. S t a t e , case (Ala. 1983). 1, 2, 100 S o . 2 d 7 4 4 , 745 i n the burden of proof as a reason that " ' " i t i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d that a judgment or o p i n i o n in action, not a civil admissible the § (quoting Helms v. S t a t e , As this Court stated hornbook law i n Alabama t h a t conclusive there So. being the d i f f e r e n t this i n Loper v. revocation App. 1985) Court has r e c o g n i z e d burdens of proof hearings, 14 the i n t u r n 22 C . J . S . C r i m i n a l State, a judgment i n a c i v i l (Ala. Crim. [employing same 35 A l a . A p p . 1 8 7 , 1 8 8 , 45 ... d i f f e r e n t d e g r e e s o f p r o o f 2d 707, 710-11 probation therein, i s involving as r e s j u d i c a t a i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e , I n t h e same v e i n , of standard] 2 d 1 7 0 , 171 ( 1 9 5 0 ) , q u o t i n g 50). of proceedings i n a subsequent c r i m i n a l prosecution beyond-a-reasonable-doubt matter"'") So. or the record placed " [ i ] ti s case i s not or v i c e versa, ... r e q u i r e d . " (Emphasis that on i t i s quite Law 469 added.) "[b]y virtue the state possible in that CR-10-0334 probation criminal may be conviction same evidence] 998, 1002 acquittal App. the of the accused's was not that defendant's Criminal Law § acquittal based testimony to 565 probability, activity other and a that facie Ex p a r t e Boyd, 542 (quoting S p i n e l l i v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 15 the 23A C . J . S . a verdict to present of sufficient beyond a reasonable to believe (recognizing i s the standard of probable grounds, about that showing, evidence that See S t o n e v . S t a t e , prima a doubt Likewise, cause or that the judge] (quoting guilt of trial, t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t App. 1986) a verdict but i t i s merely reasonable of probable not a [and t h e of innocence [ o r , i n a bench the offense. (Ala. Crim. where 507 S o . 2 d "'[a] i s true, the accused's a finding accused committed 562, finding (2010)). does n o t e s t a b l i s h support v. S t a t e , notes, on t h e S t a t e ' s f a i l u r e evidence to e s t a b l i s h doubt set of facts _ _ _ S o . 3 d _ _ _ , n.3 1903 facts 1986). beyond guilt.'" set of Carlton majority the j u r y satisfied a on t h e same i s n o t an a f f i r m a t i v e declaration on stand." (Ala. Crim. as based based cannot Further, all revoked 501 S o . 2 d "'only the of criminal cause'"), overruled So. 2d 1276 the (Ala. on 1986), 393 U.S. 4 1 0 , 419 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ) . CR-10-0334 Here, ground cause that to revoke circuit court revoked Patterson believe standard a the that he established an accused's reasonable had been had doubt. 7.5(b), i s probable The 4 Patterson's petition that acquitted basis f o r the 3d a t ___ . P., criminal cause to standard the that 7.5(b), A l a . R. cause, of the probable Crim. not proof to beyond grants on t h e that The P., however, charge the offense. of habeas corpus ground formed the " bail compliance i n Rule standard In re Winship, Patterson A l a . R. established reasonable-doubt conviction. in new on on So. ___ In d o i n g so, the m a j o r i t y e r r o n e o u s l y e l e v a t e s the Because the c i r c u i t ground a r e v o c a t i o n of h i s p r e t r i a l probable-cause Crim. based majority, for a writ " P a t t e r s o n was arrested committed i n Rule bail Patterson's bail Ala. necessary U.S. at had P., been the arrested standard I believe based on this for a on the probable established that R. 361. court revoked Patterson's b a i l with Crim. 397 7.5(b), Court in Rule should P a t t e r s o n does not c h a l l e n g e the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of the p r o b a b l e - c a u s e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d i n R u l e 7 . 5 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.; t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i s s u e i s n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h i s Court. 4 16 CR-10-0334 deny h i s p e t i t i o n for a writ I respectfully dissent "Patterson['s for is the entitled to from the m a j o r i t y ' s acquittal] revocation of of habeas c o r p u s . of the charge his pretrial reinstatement of the Accordingly, determination that bail" 5 formed the establishes original that basis that he bail. I note t h a t the c i r c u i t court f a i l e d to h o l d a h e a r i n g w i t h i n 72 h o u r s o f P a t t e r s o n ' s a r r e s t a s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 7.5, A l a . R. C r i m . P. I, however, b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s e r r o r does not mandate t h a t t h i s C o u r t g r a n t P a t t e r s o n ' s p e t i t i o n because P a t t e r s o n was eventually granted a hearing. See E x parte Bartlett, 848 So. 2d 1024, 1026 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2002) ( h o l d i n g t h a t any e r r o r i n the failure to hold a bailr e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g w i t h i n 72 h o u r s was c u r e d b y a s u b s e q u e n t h e a r i n g i n w h i c h t h e a c c u s e d was p r o v i d e d " t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o present evidence to support h i s r e l e a s e from custody"). 5 17

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.