Julio Mantez v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/30/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o 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-10-0621 Julio Mantez v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal JOINER, from M a d i s o n C i r c u i t (CC-09-3004.70) Court Judge. On A p r i l 29, 2010, J u l i o M a n t e z was a d j u d i c a t e d g u i l t y o f unlawful possession o f c o n t r o l l e d substances, § 13A-12-212(a)(1), a violation of A l a . Code 1975 (C. 7 ) ; t h e M a d i s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t s e n t e n c e d M a n t e z t o , among o t h e r t h i n g s , a t w o - y e a r term CR-10-0621 o f i m p r i s o n m e n t , w h i c h i t s u s p e n d e d , and two y e a r s ' s u p e r v i s e d probation. (C. 5.) On December 8, 2010, an "Order Probation and P a r o l e O f f i c e r A u t h o r i z i n g A r r e s t o f Violator" was arrested. (C. 4.) Probationer," issued In dated r e p o r t " ) , M a n t e z was probation and, i n three a on this "Supervisor's December 28, t o pay ways: (1) court-ordered With respect date, Report 2010 ("the Probation Mantez of was Delinquent supervisor's charged w i t h v i o l a t i n g the terms of h i s failing v i c i o u s h a b i t s ; (2) f a i l i n g t o pay failing same of to the avoid i n j u r i o u s or s u p e r v i s i o n f e e s , and; moneys. first to (C. (3) 5.) charge--that Mantez f a i l e d a v o i d i n j u r i o u s or v i c i o u s h a b i t s - - t h e f a c t s p r o v i d e d in to the s u p e r v i s o r ' s r e p o r t i n d i c a t e the f o l l o w i n g : "On 05-05-2010 Mr. M a n t e z a d m i t t e d t o and s i g n e d a d r u g use form s t a t i n g t h a t he illegally used M a r i j u a n a on 04-06-2010 and C o c a i n e on 0 4 - 2 6 - 2 0 1 0 . [ ] On 6-30-2010 Mr. M a n t e z a d m i t t e d t o and s i g n e d a d r u g use form s t a t i n g t h a t he illegally used [ L o r t a b ] p i l l s on 06-27-2010. On 08-31-2010 Mr. Mantez a d m i t t e d t o and s i g n e d a d r u g use form s t a t i n g t h a t he i l l e g a l l y u s e d [ L o r c e t ] p i l l s on 08¬ 10-2010. On 12-08-2010 Mr. M a n t e z a d m i t t e d t o and 1 M a n t e z ' s a d m i t t e d use o f m a r i j u a n a and c o c a i n e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e d a t e on w h i c h he was p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n ; the r e m a i n i n g i n s t a n c e s of drug usage, however, o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e t i m e M a n t e z was on p r o b a t i o n . 1 2 CR-10-0621 s i g n e d a drug use form s t a t i n g t h a t u s e d V a l i u m p i l l s on 11-19-2010." (C. 5.) Regarding the second charge--that pay s u p e r v i s i o n f e e s - - t h e report indicate arrearage." that (C. 5.) facts provided "Mr. Mantez Finally, he illegally Mantez f a i l e d t o i n the supervisor's currently has as t o t h e t h i r d a $60.00 charge--that Mantez f a i l e d t o pay c o u r t - o r d e r e d moneys--the f a c t s p r o v i d e d in the supervisor's c u r r e n t l y behind report court January entered probation. that Mantez court fees, circuit 5 ordered 27, an order According failed following a hearing, purporting to the order, t o pay and a d m i t t e d "technical Mantez "Mr. Mantez to serve is having (C. 6.) 2011, court concluded separate that on h i s C o u r t O r d e r e d Money p a y m e n t s , l a s t p a i d on 07-16-2010." On indicate to revoke the c i r c u i t supervision the fees, using various drugs. circuit Mantez's court failed found t o pay (C. 9.) The t h a t M a n t e z ' s v i o l a t i o n s amounted t o violations" of 5 consecutive his probation 90-day 2 and terms i n the S e e 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) f . , A l a . Code 1975 ( " I f t h e p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n i s a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n , d e f i n e d as a v i o l a t i o n o f a c o n d i t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e , an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r may be r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a t e r m o f n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n a D e p a r t m e n t o f Corrections f a c i l i t y "). 2 3 CR-10-0621 s t a t e p e n i t e n t i a r y , f o r a t o t a l confinement of 450-days. 9; R. 5-6) Notably, h e a r i n g : "I'm i f however, the c i r c u i t c o u r t s t a t e d i n the going Tech[ ] 3 and successfully to he ... is completes probation." (R. 5 (C. recommended t h a t he admitted i t , into then I (emphasis added).) apply will Life program that to and terminate M a n t e z now his appeals. M a n t e z a r g u e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t h i s a c t s d i d amount t o 5 s e p a r a t e the circuit confined court in the (Mantez's b r i e f , p r o b a t i o n v i o l a t i o n s and, was without state pp. a u t h o r i t y to penitentiary in 2-3.) The State further, that order excess him of to 90 argues that the period of a r g u e s , however, confinement imposed be days. the t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y revoked Mantez's p r o b a t i o n ; the also not that State by the c i r c u i t c o u r t i s l a w f u l b e c a u s e , the S t a t e s a y s , Mantez i s not eligible for consideration s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , and, term of imprisonment a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e we eligible for under thus, according i s proper. agree w i t h the consideration the under We do technical-violator to the not State, reach the Mantez's S t a t e t h a t Mantez i s not the technical-violator The j u d g e was a p p a r e n t l y r e f e r r i n g t o a p r o g r a m o p e r a t e d by t h e A l a b a m a B o a r d o f P a r d o n s and P a r o l e s known as L i f e S k i l l s I n f l u e n c e d by Freedom and E d u c a t i o n T e c h . 3 4 CR-10-0621 s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , § 15-22-54, A l a . Code 1975. part, reverse "'A i n p a r t , and We affirm in remand. 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 i s a b e n c h t r i a l and the t r i a l c o u r t i s t h e s o l e f a c t - f i n d e r . ' " S m i l e y v. S t a t e , 52 So. 3d 565, 819, 568 823 ( A l a . 2010) ( q u o t i n g Ex parte Abrams, 3 So. 3d ( A l a . 2008)) . "'Absent a c l e a r abuse of d i s c r e t i o n , a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t w i l l not d i s t u r b a t r i a l c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n s i n a p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n proceeding, i n c l u d i n g the d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether to revoke, modify, or continue the p r o b a t i o n . A t r i a l c o u r t abuses i t s d i s c r e t i o n o n l y when i t s d e c i s i o n i s b a s e d on an e r r o n e o u s c o n c l u s i o n o f l a w o r where t h e r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e v i d e n c e on w h i c h i t r a t i o n a l l y c o u l d have b a s e d i t s decision.'" M c C a i n v. State, 33 So. 3d ( q u o t i n g H o l d e n v. S t a t e , 820 2001) (citations "[Mantez's] case 642, So. omitted)). involves 647 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2d 158, In only 160 (Ala. Crim. this issues case, of law and facts. Thus, o u r i s de n o v o . " Ex p a r t e W a l k e r , 928 2d 259, 262 5 App. however, a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e law t o u n d i s p u t e d So. 2009) the review ( A l a . 2005) . CR-10-0621 Section 15-22-54(d)(1), A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , 4 sets out options f o r a court i n the event a p r o b a t i o n e r v i o l a t e s a c o n d i t i o n of his or her probation: "(1) I f t h e d e f e n d a n t v i o l a t e s a c o n d i t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n or suspension of execution of sentence, t h e c o u r t , a f t e r a h e a r i n g , may i m p l e m e n t one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g o p t i o n s : and "a. Continue the e x i s t i n g probation suspension of execution of sentence. "b. I s s u e a f o r m a l o r i n f o r m a l w a r n i n g to the probationer that f u r t h e r v i o l a t i o n s may, s u b j e c t t o p a r a g r a p h f . , r e s u l t i n revocation of probation or suspension of execution of sentence. "c. Conduct a f o r m a l or informal conference with the probationer to reemphasize the n e c e s s i t y of compliance with the conditions of probation. "d. M o d i f y t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n or suspension of execution of sentence, w h i c h c o n d i t i o n s may i n c l u d e t h e a d d i t i o n of s h o r t p e r i o d s of confinement. "e. I f t h e v i o l a t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n i s t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e , r e v o k e t h e probation or suspension of execution of sentence. I f the court revokes p r o b a t i o n , it may, after a hearing, impose t h e T h i s s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n , a l o n g w i t h § 15-22-54.1, A l a . Code 1975, were amended e f f e c t i v e June 14, 2 0 1 1 . A c t No. 2011-696, A l a . A c t s 2 0 1 1 . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a p p e a l , we r e f e r e n c e t h e pre-amendment l a n g u a g e . 4 6 CR-10-0621 s e n t e n c e t h a t was s u s p e n d e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g o r any l e s s e r s e n t e n c e . " f . I f the probation v i o l a t i o n i s a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n , d e f i n e d as a v i o l a t i o n of a c o n d i t i o n of p r o b a t i o n other than the c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e , an e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r may be r e q u i r e d t o s e r v e a t e r m o f n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i m p r i s o n m e n t i n a Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , which may i n c l u d e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e r e s t a r t program, LIFETech program, or a t e c h n i c a l violator program o r , i f no space i s a v a i l a b l e i n a Department of C o r r e c t i o n s f a c i l i t y , n o t more t h a n 90 d a y s i n t h e county j a i l . " As i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , s u b s e c t i o n ability t o impose f. provides the court with the c e r t a i n p e n a l t i e s i n the event the court determines that a probation v i o l a t i o n i s t e c h n i c a l ; subsection f. d i c t a t e s , however, t h a t t h i s the v i o l a t o r Ala. i s "an e l i g i b l e Code 1975. option offender." i s a v a i l a b l e only i f § 15-22-54(d)(1)f., The t e r m " e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r " i s d e f i n e d i n § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) a . , A l a . Code 1975: " ( 2 ) a . An e l i g i b l e o f f e n d e r s u b j e c t t o p a r a g r a p h f. o f s u b d i v i s i o n (1) i s a n o n v i o l e n t f e l o n s e r v i n g a p r o b a t i o n a r y s e n t e n c e who h a s v i o l a t e d a c o n d i t i o n or conditions of probation other t h a n by t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a new o f f e n s e a n d who h a s p e r f o r m e d the c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g remaining c u r r e n t on payment o f c o u r t o r d e r e d money, f o r a consecutive six-month p e r i o d . " 7 CR-10-0621 As was a p r e l i m i n a r y matter, n e i t h e r p a r t y argues t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e on w h i c h t o c o n c l u d e t h a t M a n t e z violated the admitted (R. conditions of his probation; in fact, had Mantez t h a t he had v i o l a t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s p r o b a t i o n . 2.) At the in hearing, the his probation [Mantez] technically violated his probation separate consequently, 90-day s e n t e n c e s , A l t h o u g h the "ordered w r i t t e n order that the to the circuit [to] run a term of and on court indicates that transcripts reflect impose found the "that ... 5 that separate imposed [] c o n s e c u t i v e l y . " [Mantez's] p r o b a t i o n a r y hearing intended of court is occasions"; violation circuit [Mantez] 5), there (R. circuit the imprisonment circuit pursuant 5.) court status i s revoked" that "5 (C. court to the t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t o r s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n and t e r m i n a t e Mantez's probation LIFETech program. As eligible only (R. the after successful completion of the 5.) State for c o r r e c t l y a s s e r t s , however, Mantez i s consideration statutory provision. 22-54(d)(1)f., under the technical-violator In accordance w i t h the language of § A l a . Code 1975, a c o u r t may imprisonment f o r a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n 8 not impose a t e r m of p r o b a t i o n 15of only i f CR-10-0621 the d e f e n d a n t i s an " e l i g i b l e "eligible offender" is "a offender"; nonviolent v i o l a t e d a c o n d i t i o n ...of probation the c o n d i t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n , payment of court period." ordered as n o t e d a b o v e , an felon ... who has ... and who h a s p e r f o r m e d including remaining current money, f o r a c o n s e c u t i v e on six-month § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( d ) ( 2 ) a . , A l a . Code 1975. I n t h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , M a n t e z was on p r o b a t i o n f r o m A p r i l 29, 2010, u n t i l he was w h i c h t i m e he a d m i t t e d on various dates in a r r e s t e d on December 8, 2010, i l l e g a l l y using prescribed violation of the during medications condition of h i s p r o b a t i o n t h a t he " a v o i d i n j u r i o u s o r v i c i o u s h a b i t s . " (C. 5.) In light of Mantez's length admitted conditions period, the of offender, along with d i d not perform the for a consecutive he i s n o t an e l i g i b l e A l a . Code 1975. the t r i a l probation, Mantez use, h i s probation and, t h u s , 54(d)(2)a., drug of Mantez's B e c a u s e he c o u r t was w i t h o u t offender. six-month 5 § 15-22- i s n o t an eligible a u t h o r i t y t o impose a T h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s b o l s t e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t court's f i n d i n g t h a t Mantez was a l s o b e h i n d on payment o f c o u r t o r d e r e d moneys. (C. 9.) 5 9 CR-10-0621 term of imprisonment statutory provision. Although insofar we to the d e c i s i o n a term of imprisonment statutory technical-violator of the c i r c u i t t h a t Mantez v i o l a t e d reverse the d e c i s i o n of the t r i a l imposed the 6 affirm as i t f o u n d pursuant p r o v i s i o n , a n d we h i s probation, we court to the extent that i t under remand proceedings consistent with t h i s court the t e c h n i c a l - v i o l a t o r this cause for further opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Welch, P . J . , a n d Windom, K e l l u m , a n d B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u r . We r e c o g n i z e t h a t , h a d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t made c e r t a i n factual f i n d i n g s , the c i r c u i t court c o u l d have revoked Mantez's probation and "imposed the sentence that was s u s p e n d e d a t t h e o r i g i n a l h e a r i n g o r any l e s s e r s e n t e n c e . " § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 ( d ) ( 1 ) e . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . The r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t made s u c h f i n d i n g s n o r does i t i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t e n d e d t o i m p o s e M a n t e z ' s o r i g i n a l s u s p e n d e d s e n t e n c e o r some l e s s e r s e n t e n c e . Instead, the r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t the c i r c u i t court found t h a t M a n t e z was a t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t o r a n d i m p o s e d a term o f imprisonment pursuant t o the t e c h n i c a l - v i o l a t o r s t a t u t o r y provision. 6 10

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.