Winston Gale Strickland v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 9/30/2011 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-10-0450 Winston Gale Strickland v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from M a d i s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-09-7215; CC-09-7216) JOINER, Judge. Winston first-degree 1975. Gale S t r i c k l a n d was c o n v i c t e d robbery, The c i r c u i t a violation court sentenced o f two c o u n t s o f o f § 13A-8-41, A l a . Code S t r i c k l a n d t o 25 i m p r i s o n m e n t on e a c h c o n v i c t i o n a n d o r d e r e d years' that the sentences CR-10-0450 run concurrently. S t r i c k l a n d t o pay assessment Additionally, a $50 on each trial, the fine, the a $50 conviction, circuit court ordered crime-victims-compensation court costs, and $953 in restitution. At following. On M a r c h 19, Chevron Food Mart 4:45 a.m., State's evidence l o c a t e d i n Madison County. Kennedy was in the Rothwell t i m e , K e n n e d y was what t u r n e d out "hey" i n what she Kennedy attempted counter to three men alert told t o be later a "shotgun her armed w i t h a s h o t g u n the second man the third man The r e g i s t e r " and jumped followed men continued with that s t o r e and was in front the counter through to tell of next the first the door The to man the The man counter, to Kennedy, Kennedy a l s o t o l d her to " h u r r y up." under The say counter. unsuccessful. register." she Kennedy the located the 2 two Around ran behind she the her a "mean t o n e . " she but her at the approximately e n t e r the stayed and over At along the p a n i c b u t t o n to "[o]pen working Calzinski. t h r e e men police, show t h e women's r e s t r o o m when c l i c k , " and to push the Brent d e s c r i b e d as was counter. and store walking toward heard to 2 0 0 9 , J a n a K e n n e d y was friends--Cameron then heard tended and behind the "[o]pen the who jumped CR-10-0450 over the counter struck Kennedy i n the back of b e c a u s e she c o u l d n o t open t h e r e g i s t e r q u i c k l y . the shotgun attempted aimed i t at R o t h w e l l t o open t h e r e g i s t e r . s c a r e d , " b e c a u s e you t h i n k lose the one o f y o u r register, register. best friends." and t h e t h r e e The men then men told then took packs took a l s o took Kennedy's purse, which money, a n d h e r k e y s . Before t h a t s h e was wrong, you can t h e money Kennedy of cigarettes Kennedy E v e n t u a l l y , Kennedy Kennedy, however, d i d n o t have t h e keys men while stated i f y o u do s o m e t h i n g to opened out of the open the left to the doors lock telephoned Rothwell, the store, from behind left and C a l z i n s k i a description asked and she t e l e p h o n e d the p o l i c e . When told of the three The t h e c o u n t e r and c o n t a i n e d h e r c e l l phone, h e r t h e men Kennedy safe. t o open t h e s a f e . the store they a m i l k c r a t e t o knock t h e s e c u r i t y camera o f f t h e w a l l . t h e men head The man w i t h and C a l z i n s k i Kennedy 1 the Rothwell her boss. the p o l i c e and After Calzinski Rothwell arrived, used then Kennedy, them what happened and gave them men. K e n n e d y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e t h r e e men d i d n o t t a k e any p r o p e r t y from R o t h w e l l o r C a l z i n s k i . N e i t h e r Rothwell nor Calzinski t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l . 1 3 CR-10-0450 Deputy Office was Shawn that On until the the Bolin 13, took and April Miranda his 13, and the robbery 2009, that Strickland told Miranda himself, Madison custody and was Bolin, some p o i n t , Deputy Derek to one McClure robbery. Bolin. that During Watts, Jonte o c c u r r e d at Sheriff's questioned him read indicated the Tekita Strickland that he 2009. that, U.S. Deputy McClure t e s t i f i e d that means " t o r o b somebody." (R. 117.) 3 4 his t o go the regarding told girlfriend, According "hit a initially, 436 his understood Strickland Marquita. decided Office regarding to provide a statement they 384 the County McClure McClure v. A r i z o n a , with at h i s house w i t h and Deputy interviewed the he w i s h e d According 2009. Deputy he told involved o c c u r r e d on M a r c h 19, Alexander, at 19, Strickland that Strickland, 2 into that Deputy McClure Watts, been Sheriff's for approximately i n the robbery March County the robbery. Officer implicated on warnings. rights Police have assertions. 2 Madison went u n s o l v e d Strickland Strickland Bolin's may Bolin Chevron Food Mart On the 2009, Deputy M c C l u r e interview, Alexander, case a Huntsville Brandon April of assigned to i n v e s t i g a t e Deputy McClure, month McClure he to lick." and 3 his (1966). phrase "hit a lick" CR-10-0450 girlfriend did not want told Deputy McClure, them just McClure to see that what they Strickland denied confronted Strickland that went black" went drove and were Watts individuals taken Alexander then and p h o t o g r a p h s as was is by the Watts. who Strickland told the because white. he did the he head. had McClure then the three the store. the into store himself c o u n t e r and Strickland who "subjects in identified jumped over the the believe of camera went i t . McClure not three Deputy Bolin, rob Deputy photographs that to with Deputy that store that security individual and store. Strickland t h e man "rolling him with Strickland e n d e d up the store admitted the into others. store into told Kennedy i n the back of the Alexander the and Strickland he down." went Bolin the that the confronted Strickland with to going into and go however, Alexander, Bolin to in the punched t o l d McClure shotgun with during that the robbery. After the State rested its case-in-chief, m o v e d f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l , w h i c h was State and Strickland Both the t h e n p r e s e n t e d c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t s , and the 5 denied. Strickland CR-10-0450 circuit court verdict on On two charged the two appeal, the counts jury. of for jury returned first-degree S t r i c k l a n d argues convictions The the first-degree following: (1) robbery the State's e v i d e n c e was arising indictment says, the i t failed (4) that and the a material proof indictment he was Strickland first-degree jeopardy. only says, the The this first robbery was taken one State robbery State of the jeopardy; support his between at trial was armed and the that two theft; the because, he he and indictment says, the evidence at trial unarmed. argues v i o l a t e the Specifically, Mart, degree offered existed his d e f e c t i v e because, e s s e n t i a l element of variance a l l e g e d t h a t he showed t h a t property to define was to that out double insufficient c o n v i c t i o n s ; ( 3 ) t h a t the guilty robbery. same i n c i d e n t v i o l a t e t h e p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t (2) that a act could from of convictions p r o h i b i t i o n against S t r i c k l a n d contends both Kennedy violence not his and occurred s e p a r a t e the that, the and, offense for double although Chevron Food therefore, i n t o two he first- charges. contends that S t r i c k l a n d has argument f o r r e v i e w because, 6 i t says, failed to preserve Strickland did not CR-10-0450 first has raise held, this argument however, argument p r e s e n t s that i n the c i r c u i t the issue CR-09-1826, March App. (citing Williams to App. 2 0 0 8 ) ) . first i n Strickland's Thus, v. S t a t e , regardless (Ala. 10 S o . 3 d 1 0 8 3 of Strickland's as court, (Ala. failure Jury on i n the c i r c u i t Crim. S t r i c k l a n d was i n d i c t e d b y t h e M a d i s o n C o u n t y G r a n d issue issue , [Ms. must this this So. 3d this we address raise Court See, e.g., Brooks v. S t a t e , 25, 2011] Crim. raised This a p o s s i b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l defect, which Court has a duty t o n o t i c e . 2011) court. appeal. follows: "Count 5 "The Grand Jury of s a i d County charge, that before the f i n d i n g of this Indictment, Winston Gal[e] S t r i c k l a n d , w h o s e name i s u n k n o w n t o t h e G r a n d J u r y o t h e r t h a n as s t a t e d , d i d , i n t h e c o u r s e o f c o m m i t t i n g a t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y , t o - w i t : One (1) purse and c o n t e n t s , the property o f , t o - w i t : Jana Kennedy, use force against the person of Jana Kennedy, w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o overcome h e r p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e o r p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e o r t o compel a c q u i e s c e n c e t o t h e t a k i n g o f o r escaping with the property, while the said Winston Gal[e] S t r i c k l a n d , w h o s e name i s u n k n o w n t o t h e G r a n d J u r y o t h e r t h a n a s s t a t e d , was a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y w e a p o n or dangerous instrument, t o - w i t : a shotgun, i n violation of Section 13A-8-41 o f t h e Code o f Alabama, a g a i n s t t h e peace and d i g n i t y o f t h e State of Alabama. 7 CR-10-0450 "Count 6 "The G r a n d J u r y o f s a i d C o u n t y c h a r g e , that before the finding of this Indictment, Winston Gal[e] Strickland, w h o s e name i s u n k n o w n t o t h e Grand J u r y o t h e r than as s t a t e d , d i d , i n t h e c o u r s e of committing a theft of property, t o - w i t : l a w f u l currency of the United States, a further d e s c r i p t i o n o f w h i c h amount a n d d e n o m i n a t i o n b e i n g otherwise unknown t o t h e G r a n d J u r y , t h e p r o p e r t y o f , t o - w i t : Chevon [ s i c ] Food Mart, use f o r c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n of Jana Kennedy, w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o overcome h e r p h y s i c a l r e s i s t a n c e o r p h y s i c a l power o f r e s i s t a n c e or t o compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property, while the said Winston Gal[e] Strickland, w h o s e name i s u n k n o w n t o t h e G r a n d J u r y o t h e r t h a n a s s t a t e d , was a r m e d w i t h a d e a d l y weapon o r d a n g e r o u s i n s t r u m e n t , to-wit: a s h o t g u n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 13A-8-41 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a , a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e a n d d i g n i t y o f the State o f Alabama." (C. 1 4 . ) It "[t]he i s well settled State cannot convert property f r o m one v i c t i m so v i o l a t e s of Brooks, Craig into (Ala. Crim. v State, separate App. i n this offenses cases, b e c a u s e t o do against double jeopardy; i s the act of violence So. 3d a t The f a c t s i n f i r s t - d e g r e e robbery a s i n g l e t h e f t of v a r i o u s items of the prohibition prosecution 1250 that, against the ( q u o t i n g C r a i g v. S t a t e , the unit person." 893 S o . 2 d 2004)). case are similar to those 893 S o . 2 d 1 2 5 0 ( A l a . C r i m . 8 presented i n App. 2004): CR-10-0450 "On J u l y 9, 2 0 0 1 , P a u l e t t e G a l l a h a r was w o r k i n g a t a d r y - c l e a n i n g b u s i n e s s when C r a i g e n t e r e d the s t o r e , p u l l e d o u t a w e a p o n , a n d a n n o u n c e d , '"Oh by t h e way, t h i s i s a r o b b e r y . ... I'm t a k i n g money o u t o f t h i s s t o r e a n d I'm t a k i n g y o u r c a r . " ' (R. 95.) C r a i g s t o l e $45 f r o m t h e c a s h r e g i s t e r and f o r c e d G a l l a h a r i n t o the back o f the s t o r e . I n the back o f the store, Craig took $5 and car keys from Gallahar's purse. Craig f o r c e d G a l l a h a r to kneel i n a c o r n e r , p u t p l a s t i c a r o u n d h e r head, and h e l d a gun t o h e r h e a d . A n o t h e r c u s t o m e r e n t e r e d t h e f r o n t o f t h e s t o r e . C r a i g w e n t t o w a i t on t h e c u s t o m e r , s o as t o n o t c a u s e any s u s p i c i o n . G a l l a h a r r a n t o t h e doorway to the f r o n t o f the s t o r e and shouted, ' " I t ' s a r o b b e r y , i t ' s a r o b b e r y . " ' (R. 103.) She ran out the back door, y e l l i n g , jumped i n t o her c a r , and l o c k e d t h e d o o r s . C r a i g f o l l o w e d h e r and, w i t h her keys, unlocked the passenger side door. C r a i g got i n t o the passenger side of the f r o n t seat, g r a b b e d G a l l a h a r ' s w r i s t , a n d s t a t e d , 'Okay, b i t c h , y o u ' r e d r i v i n g . ' (R. 105.) G a l l a h a r j e r k e d away f r o m C r a i g , jumped out o f t h e c a r , and r a n . C r a i g d r o v e away f r o m t h e s c e n e o f t h e c r i m e i n G a l l a h a r ' s c a r . C r a i g was a r r e s t e d i n K e n t u c k y s e v e r a l d a y s l a t e r i n G a l l a h a r ' s c a r . G a l l a h a r l a t e r p i c k e d C r a i g out o f a photographic lineup." 893 So. 2d a t 1252. In C r a i g , this Court held: "'The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t e e a g a i n s t double jeopardy protects a defendant from being subjected to m u l t i p l e punishments f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . T h i s g u a r a n t e e b a r s t h e c o n v i c t i o n o f a d e f e n d a n t f o r two s e p a r a t e c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e r o b b e r y where the e v i d e n c e a d d u c e d a t t r i a l t e n d e d t o show t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t c o m m i t t e d o n l y one a c t of r o b b e r y a g a i n s t one v i c t i m . M o o r e v . S t a t e , 70 9 So. 2 d 1324 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).' 9 CR-10-0450 "'Young v . S t a t e , 1998). 724 S o . 2 d 6 9 , 73 ( A l a . C r i m . App. "'This i s n o t a c a s e w h e r e t h e same act or t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f t w o d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s . See B l o c k b u r g e r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 284 U.S. 2 9 9 (1932) The pertinent inquiry in d e c i d i n g whether [these convictions are] acceptable i n the face of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l guarantees against double jeopardy then becomes defining the correct unit of prosecution. B e l l v. U n i t e d States, 349 U.S. 81 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . "'"'A s i n g l e c r i m e c a n n o t b e d i v i d e d i n t o two o r more o f f e n s e s and thereby subject the perpetrator to multiple c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same o f f e n s e . C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , A r t . I , § 9; U.S. C o n s t . Amend. V.' E x p a r t e D a r b y , 516 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 787 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . Such q u e s t i o n o f d o u b l e j e o p a r d y is determined by t h e f o l l o w i n g principles: " ' " ' I t has been a p t l y n o t e d that "the Blockburger [v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932),] test i s insufficient where ... the concern i s not multiple charges under separate s t a t u t e s , but rather successive prosecutions f o r c o n d u c t t h a t may constitute the same act or t r a n s a c t i o n . " R a s h a d v . B u r t , 108 F . 3 d 677 ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h i s i s because when "a defendant i s convicted for violating one s t a t u t e m u l t i p l e t i m e s , t h e same evidence test will never be 10 CR-10-0450 satisfied." S t a t e v . A d e l , 136 Wash. 2d 6 2 9 , 965 P.2d 1072 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . The " a p p r o p r i a t e i n q u i r y " i n such a case "asks what 'unit o f p r o s e c u t i o n ' was i n t e n d e d b y the L e g i s l a t u r e as t h e p u n i s h a b l e act The i n q u i r y r e q u i r e s u s to look t o the language and purpose of t h e s t a t u t e s , t o see whether t h e y speak directly to the i s s u e o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n , a n d i f t h e y do not, to ascertain that unit, keeping in mind that any ambiguity that arises i n the p r o c e s s must be r e s o l v e d , under the rule of lenity, i n the defendant's favor." Commonwealth v. Rabb, 431 M a s s . 1 2 3 , 725 N.E.2d 1036 (2000) (concluding that allegedly multiple drug possessions justify multiple charges i f the possessions are sufficiently differentiated by time, place or intended purpose, the case here regarding defendant's p o s s e s s i o n of drugs at h i s r e s i d e n c e f o r immediate s a l e and h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f drugs at m o t e l f o r f u t u r e s a l e s ) . ' "'"4 Wayne R. LaFave et a l . , Criminal Procedure § 17.4(b), 2001 Pocket Part n.66 (2d e d . 1999). See also Project, 'Twenty-Ninth Annual Review of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , ' 88 G e o . L . J . 879, 1293 (2000) ('when the government seeks t o prove t h a t a single a c t or occurrence r e s u l t s in multiple violations of the same s t a t u t e , t h e r u l e o f l e n i t y 11 CR-10-0450 requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose m u l t i p l e punishments is shown')." "''Townsend v . S t a t e , 823 So. 2d 7 1 7 , 722 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard] ).' "Girard, 883 So. 2d at 715-16. " ' " R o b b e r y i s an offense against the person Ex p a r t e W i n d s o r , 683 So. 2d 1 0 4 2 , 1046 (Ala. 1 996) ( q u o t i n g W i n d s o r v . S t a t e , 683 So. 2 d 1027 , 1032 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) ) . T h a t i s , t h e v i c t i m i n this case was Gallahar, not the dry-cleaning business, although some of the property taken b e l o n g e d t o t h e b u s i n e s s . P r o o f o f an a c t u a l t a k i n g of p r o p e r t y i s not r e q u i r e d to s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n f o r r o b b e r y . See C o o k v . S t a t e , 582 So. 2 d 592 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . Thus i t i s t h e use o f f o r c e , o r the t h r e a t of the use of f o r c e , a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n t h a t c o n s t i t u t e s the crime; t h e r e f o r e , the u n i t of prosecution i s the act of v i o l e n c e against the person. Thus, the number o f c h a r g e s a g a i n s t the d e f e n d a n t i s n o t d e t e r m i n e d by t h e number o f p i e c e s of p r o p e r t y a c t u a l l y taken, as was done i n t h i s c a s e . C f . C o n n o l l y v . S t a t e , 539 So. 2 d 4 3 6 , 441-42 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1988) ('The S t a t e c o u l d not c o n v e r t a s i n g l e t h e f t of v a r i o u s items of p r o p e r t y into s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e s by a l l e g i n g t h e t h e f t o f d i f f e r e n t items i n separate i n d i c t m e n t s . A l l the p r o p e r t y was t a k e n d u r i n g t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n a n d c o n s t i t u t e d one o f f e n s e . S u c h i s n o t p e r m i t t e d . ' ) . " 893 So. 2d The shows at 1254-56. evidence that continuous in this case, S t r i c k l a n d , Watts, act of violence like and against 12 the evidence in Craig, Alexander committed Kennedy. The fact one that CR-10-0450 Strickland, both and A l e x a n d e r took property belonging to Kennedy a n d t o t h e C h e v r o n Food M a r t does n o t c r e a t e two separate twice of Watts, first-degree placed two one convictions with i n jeopardy separate against circuit convictions return should release further Strickland's orders sentences b e made of this Because for and robbery f o r and c o n v i c t e d robbery one of committed Strickland's i s t o be v a c a t e d , along sentence. therefore, with indicted Accordingly, f o rfirst-degree court T h u s , S t r i c k l a n d was of first-degree victim. case, offenses. by b e i n g charges the accompanying This robbery i s due that t o be the court entered to this remanded vacate against Court within to the one o f t h e Strickland. 28 d a y s Due of the opinion. this case must be remanded proceedings, remaining we claims to the c i r c u i t pretermit until return court discussion i s made to of this Court. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. W e l c h , P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , a n d B u r k e , 13 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.