Samuel Brown v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/30/2013 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, 2012-2013 CR-11-1537 Samuel Brown v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CC-00-430.60; CC-00-431.60; CC-00-432.60; CC-00-433.60; CC-00-434.60; CC-00-435.60; CC-00-436.60; CC-00-437.60; CC-00-438.60) On R e t u r n t o Remand PER CURIAM. Samuel sentences 15, Brown appeals the revocation i m p o s e d b y t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t 2000, Brown p l e a d e d of his split Court. On June g u i l t y t o four counts o f f i r s t - d e g r e e CR-11-1537 burglary, see third-degree § 13A-7-5, A l a . Code 1975; four b u r g l a r y , s e e § 13A-7-7, A l a . Code counts of 1975; f o u r c o u n t s o f f i r s t - d e g r e e t h e f t o f p r o p e r t y , s e e § 13A-8-3, A l a . Code 1975; t h r e e c o u n t s of second-degree t h e f t of property, see § 13A-8-4, A l a . Code 1975; one c o u n t o f t h i r d - d e g r e e t h e f t of p r o p e r t y , s e e § 13A-8-5, A l a . Code 1975; a n d one c o u n t o f failing t o r e g i s t e r as a s e x o f f e n d e r , s e e § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 1 I n c a s e number CC-00-430, Brown was s e n t e n c e d as a h a b i t u a l o f f e n d e r w i t h a weapon enhancement t o 20 y e a r s i n prison, split to serve 5 years i n prison. I n case numbers CC-00-431, CC-00-432, a n d CC-00-433, Brown was s e n t e n c e d as a habitual years o f f e n d e r t o 15 y e a r s i n prison. In case CC-00-436, Brown was years i n prison, numbers years CC-00-437 i n prison, as a h a b i t u a l to serve 3 years a n d CC-00-438, split split to serve 3 numbers CC-00-434, CC-00-435, a n d sentenced split i n prison, to serve i n prison. Brown was 3 o f f e n d e r t o 15 years In case sentenced i n prison. t o 10 The s e n t e n c e s were t o r u n c o n s e c u t i v e l y . S e c t i o n 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, was r e p e a l e d on J u l y 1, 2011, b y A c t No. 2011-640 § 4 9 , A l a . A c t s 2011. 1 2 CR-11-1537 On S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 2002, Brown a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t court f o r a hearing regarding several prison d i s c i p l i n a r i e s had received while incarcerated. c i r c u i t court revoked did not appeal On sentences. and imposed h i s I t a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t Brown from the r e v o c a t i o n of h i s s p l i t December challenging F o l l o w i n g the hearing, the Brown's s p l i t s e n t e n c e s u n d e r l y i n g sentences. 28, the he 2011, Brown circuit Specifically, filed court's sentences. a Rule revocation 32 of petition the split Brown a l l e g e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court v i o l a t e d h i s due p r o c e s s r i g h t s by r e v o k i n g t h e p r o b a t i o n a r y portion without pursuant of h i s sentences t o R u l e 27, A l a . R. C r i m . Brown's r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g the first circuit court was granted P. unconstitutional; relief and 26, 2012. the a portion of court entered Brown's sentences. On new sentences June 11, 2012, Brown argued, hearing scheduled revoking imposing Brown therefore, a new F o l l o w i n g the hearing, order and a The S t a t e c o n c e d e d t h a t revocation hearing f o rA p r i l circuit conducting the filed the split underlying h i s notice of appeal. On circuit appeal, court erroneously among o t h e r revoked 3 things, the s p l i t that the p o r t i o n of h i s CR-11-1537 sentences because Specifically, illegal his Brown split asserted because the c i r c u i t probation sentences that his split illegal. sentences were c o u r t d i d not i n c l u d e a term o f f o r any o f h i s s e n t e n c e s . This regarding Court determined whether that the c i r c u i t the court p e r i o d s on Brown's s p l i t s e n t e n c e s . 2013, were this record was imposed unclear probationary C o n s e q u e n t l y , on May 2 1 , C o u r t remanded t h e c a u s e , b y o r d e r , t o t h e c i r c u i t court with instructions f o r i t t o make s p e c i f i c findings of f a c t r e g a r d i n g whether p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d s had been imposed. The it circuit court held a hearing had n o t imposed and, t h e r e a f t e r , found any p r o b a t i o n a r y periods. The that circuit c o u r t t h e n , i n an a t t e m p t t o remedy t h e e r r o r , i m p o s e d a s p l i t sentence. Initially, not this have j u r i s d i c t i o n This Court's and the c i r c u i t court d i d on remand t o i m p o s e a s p l i t sentence. court only to A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e d e c i s i o n t o impose a s e n t e n c e was o u t s i d e void. that remand o r d e r p e r m i t t e d t h e c i r c u i t make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t . split Court notes t h e scope o f t h i s Court's remand See Simmons v . S t a t e , 797 So. 2d 1134, 1183 ( A l a . 4 CR-11-1537 Crim. App. 1999) (Actions "outside order [are] v o i d f o r l a c k of the scope of our remand jurisdiction."). F u r t h e r , § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, provides: "(a) When a d e f e n d a n t i s c o n v i c t e d o f an o f f e n s e , o t h e r than a c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 1 ( 5 ) , [ A l a . Code 1975,] w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s a C l a s s A o r B f e l o n y and r e c e i v e s a s e n t e n c e o f 20 y e a r s o r l e s s i n any court having j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y offenses against t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a and t h e j u d g e p r e s i d i n g o v e r t h e c a s e i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e ends o f j u s t i c e and t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p u b l i c as w e l l as t h e d e f e n d a n t w i l l be s e r v e d t h e r e b y , he o r she may order: "(1) T h a t t h e c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t be confined in a prison, jail-type i n s t i t u t i o n , or treatment i n s t i t u t i o n f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding three years i n cases where t h e i m p o s e d s e n t e n c e i s n o t more t h a n 15 y e a r s , and t h a t t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s e n t e n c e be suspended n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any p r o v i s i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e c o n t r a r y and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n f o r s u c h p e r i o d and upon s u c h t e r m s as t h e c o u r t deems b e s t . In c a s e s i n v o l v i n g an i m p o s e d s e n t e n c e o f g r e a t e r t h a n 15 y e a r s , b u t n o t more t h a n 20 y e a r s , t h e s e n t e n c i n g j u d g e may o r d e r t h a t t h e c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t be c o n f i n e d i n a p r i s o n , j a i l - t y p e i n s t i t u t i o n , or treatment i n s t i t u t i o n f o r a p e r i o d not exceeding f i v e y e a r s , but not l e s s than three years, d u r i n g which the o f f e n d e r s h a l l not be e l i g i b l e f o r p a r o l e or r e l e a s e because of d e d u c t i o n f r o m s e n t e n c e f o r good b e h a v i o r under the Alabama C o r r e c t i o n a l I n c e n t i v e Time A c t , and t h a t t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h e s e n t e n c e be s u s p e n d e d n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any 5 CR-11-1537 p r o v i s i o n o f t h e law t o t h e c o n t r a r y and t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t be p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n f o r t h e p e r i o d upon t h e t e r m s as t h e c o u r t deems b e s t . " (Emphasis added.) I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t u n d e r § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, a circuit court is on p r o b a t i o n placed "'can s p l i t a sentence only i f the defendant for a definite period confinement p o r t i o n of the s p l i t sentence.'" 871 So. 2d 106, 109 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) S t a t e , 864 So. 2d 395, 398 Hughes v. S t a t e , ("Application f o l l o w i n g the Moore v. S t a t e , ( q u o t i n g Madden v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ) . 518 So. 2d 890, 891 of § 15-18-8[, See a l s o ( A l a . C r i m . App. A l a . Code suspension of that p o r t i o n of the s p l i t 1975,] 1987) necessitates sentence that i s not a c t u a l c o n f i n e m e n t and p l a c e m e n t o f t h e c o n v i c t e d d e f e n d a n t on probation order f o r that period."). Brown to serve Here, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not probationary periods for his split s e n t e n c e s ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e manner i n w h i c h Brown was o r d e r e d t o e x e c u t e h i s s e n t e n c e s was i l l e g a l . Addressing ordered Moore, 871 So. 2d a t 108. a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n wherein the c i r c u i t an i n m a t e t o serve an i l l e g a l Court r e c e n t l y held: 6 split sentence, court this CR-11-1537 " I n i t i a l l y , we n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e l e g a l i t y o f E n f i n g e r ' s s e n t e n c e was n o t f i r s t a r g u e d i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , we have h e l d t h a t when t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t does n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y to s p l i t a s e n t e n c e u n d e r t h e S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t , § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, 'the manner i n w h i c h t h e [ c i r c u i t ] c o u r t s p l i t t h e s e n t e n c e i s i l l e g a l [ , ] ' A u s t i n v. S t a t e , 864 So. 2d 1115, 1118 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) , and that '[m]atters concerning unauthorized sentences are j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . ' Hunt v. S t a t e , 659 So. 2d 998, 999 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . Thus, t h i s C o u r t may t a k e n o t i c e o f an i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e a t any t i m e . See e.g., P e n d e r v. S t a t e , 740 So. 2d 482 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 9 9 ) . "As e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , E n f i n g e r p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o s e x u a l abuse o f a c h i l d u n d e r 12, see § 13A-6-69.1, A l a . Code 1975, and was s e n t e n c e d , as an h a b i t u a l f e l o n y o f f e n d e r , t o 20 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t and t h a t s e n t e n c e was s p l i t and E n f i n g e r was o r d e r e d t o s e r v e 'time s e r v e d i n the custody of the S h e r i f f of Baldwin C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , ' f o l l o w e d by 3 years' supervised probation. ( R e c o r d on R e t u r n t o Remand, C. 13-15.) The c i r c u i t c o u r t , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t have the a u t h o r i t y , under the Split-Sentence Act, § 15-18-8, Ala. Code 1975, to split Enfinger's s e n t e n c e o r t o impose a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n . "Section 15-18-8(a), Ala. Code 1975, s p e c i f i c a l l y exempts f r o m t h e S p l i t - S e n t e n c e Act those offenders who have b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f 'a c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 15-20-21(5).' S e c t i o n 15-20-21(5), A l a . Code 1975, d e f i n e s ' c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d ' as 'a c o n v i c t i o n f o r any c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e i n w h i c h t h e v i c t i m was a c h i l d u n d e r t h e age of 12 and any offense involving child p o r n o g r a p h y . ' A d d i t i o n a l l y , § 1 5 - 1 8 - 8 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i c a l l y p r e c l u d e s t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f r o m imposing a term of p r o b a t i o n f o r o f f e n d e r s c o n v i c t e d o f 'a c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 15-20-21(5), which c o n s t i t u t e s a 7 CR-11-1537 C l a s s A or B f e l o n y . " Thus, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e i t h e r impose a s p l i t s e n t e n c e o r t o impose a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n . See § 1 5 - 1 8 - 8 ( a ) and ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. Therefore, the "execution of [Enfinger's] sentence i s i l l e g a l . " Simmons v. S t a t e , 879 So. 2d 1218, 1222 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) . " I n c a s e s where t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y t o impose the S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t , the p r o p e r remedy has b e e n t o remand t h e c a s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t t o remove t h e s p l i t p o r t i o n of the sentence. See e.g., Simmons, s u p r a ( h o l d i n g t h a t , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o s p l i t a s e n t e n c e and r e m a n d i n g the case t o the c i r c u i t court f o r t h a t court to set aside the s p l i t p o r t i o n o f t h e s e n t e n c e ) , M o r r i s v. S t a t e , 876 So. 2d 1176 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) (same); c f . , Moore v. State, 871 So. 2d 106 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) (holding that, although the circuit court had a u t h o r i t y to s p l i t the sentence, the c i r c u i t court split t h e s e n t e n c e i n an i m p r o p e r manner, and remanding the case t o the c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t court to 'reconsider the execution' of the s e n t e n c e ) , A u s t i n , s u p r a (same). "Those c a s e s , h o w e v e r , do n o t c o n t e m p l a t e t h e s p e c i f i c f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e -- t h a t i s , where t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i m p o s e s a s p l i t s e n t e n c e and a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n u n d e r t h e S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t when i t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o do so and later conducts a p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n hearing at which i t revokes a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n a r y t e r m and o r d e r s t h a t t h e defendant serve the remainder of h i s u n d e r l y i n g sentence i n p r i s o n . Thus, t h e i s s u e b e f o r e this Court i s whether the circuit court's improper i m p o s i t i o n o f t h e S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t can be r e m e d i e d by t h e c i r c u i t court's conducting a probationrevocation hearing and revoking a defendant's probation. 8 CR-11-1537 "As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , b e c a u s e the nature of E n f i n g e r ' s g u i l t y - p l e a c o n v i c t i o n exempts h i m f r o m a p p l i c a t i o n of the S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t , the c i r c u i t c o u r t h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o a p p l y t h e S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t t o E n f i n g e r and no a u t h o r i t y t o impose a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n on E n f i n g e r . See § 1 5 - 1 8 - 8 ( a ) and ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. B e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y t o s p l i t E n f i n g e r ' s s e n t e n c e o r t o impose a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n , i t l i k e w i s e h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o c o n d u c t a 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 and r e v o k e E n f i n g e r ' s p r o b a t i o n u n d e r § 1 5 - 1 8 - 8 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t u n d e r t h e S p l i t S e n t e n c e A c t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t 'may r e v o k e o r m o d i f y any c o n d i t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n o r may change t h e p e r i o d of p r o b a t i o n . ' B e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y t o impose a t e r m o f p r o b a t i o n o r t o r e v o k e probation, the circuit court's order revoking Enfinger's probation i s void. "Because t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s p r o b a t i o n o r d e r i s v o i d , the sentence i n t h i s case i s analogous t o the s e n t e n c e s a t i s s u e i n Simmons and M o r r i s . Thus, l i k e t h o s e c a s e s , we must remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t t o remove t h e s p l i t p o r t i o n o f E n f i n g e r ' s s e n t e n c e , See e.g., Simmons, supra; M o r r i s , supra. To do s o , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must ' c o n d u c t a n o t h e r s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g and ... r e c o n s i d e r the execution of [Enfinger's] 20-year sentence. B e c a u s e t h e 2 0 - y e a r s e n t e n c e was v a l i d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may n o t change i t . ' A u s t i n , 864 So. 2d a t 1119; Moore, 871 So. 2d a t 109-10. "We recognize that the circuit court's r e v o c a t i o n of E n f i n g e r ' s p r o b a t i o n i n t h i s case a p p e a r s t o r e a c h a r e s u l t t h a t i s no d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e r e s u l t t h a t was o b t a i n e d i n Simmons and M o r r i s -- i . e . , t h e p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n i n e s s e n c e removed the u n a u t h o r i z e d s p l i t . Those c a s e s , h o w e v e r , d i d n o t i n v o l v e m e r e l y t h e r e m o v a l o f an i m p r o p e r s p l i t . In each of those c a s e s , the c i r c u i t court was i n s t r u c t e d t o c o n s i d e r on remand w h e t h e r t h e r e m o v a l of the s p l i t would a f f e c t the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of the 9 CR-11-1537 defendant's g u i l t y p l e a . Further, the c i r c u i t court i n e a c h c a s e was i n s t r u c t e d t h a t , i f t h e d e f e n d a n t moved t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a , i t s h o u l d a l l o w t h e d e f e n d a n t t o do s o . See Simmons, s u p r a ; M o r r i s , 876 So. 2d a t 1178 ('Because t h e s p l i t s e n t e n c e was a term of the a p p e l l a n t ' s p l e a agreement, i f the a p p e l l a n t moves t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d g r a n t t h e m o t i o n . See A u s t i n v. S t a t e , 864 So. 2d 1115 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 3 ) . ' ) . To h o l d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t can remedy t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f an u n a u t h o r i z e d s p l i t s e n t e n c e by r e v o k i n g a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n , however, would p r e v e n t t h a t d e f e n d a n t f r o m b e i n g a b l e t o move t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a and t h u s w o u l d t r e a t h i m differently t h a n t h e d e f e n d a n t s i n Simmons and M o r r i s were t r e a t e d -- i . e . , a f t e r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t conducts a resentencing, the defendant would not have t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l t o move t o w i t h d r a w h i s g u i l t y p l e a u n d e r R u l e 1 4 . 4 ( e ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P.; i n s t e a d , an i n d i g e n t d e f e n d a n t w o u l d have t o r a i s e , p r o se i n a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n , t h e i s s u e t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s g u i l t y p l e a was i n v o l u n t a r y . " F u r t h e r m o r e , h o l d i n g t h a t a c i r c u i t c o u r t can remedy t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f an i m p r o p e r s p l i t s e n t e n c e by r e v o k i n g a d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n c o u l d l e a d t o an absurd r e s u l t . For example, a d e f e n d a n t s e r v i n g a sentence t h a t i s improper under the S p l i t - S e n t e n c e A c t c o u l d be c h a r g e d w i t h v i o l a t i n g t h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s p r o b a t i o n and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d t h e r e a f t e r revoke t h a t defendant's p r o b a t i o n . On a p p e a l , the defendant c o u l d contend t h a t the e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e r e v o c a t i o n o f h i s p r o b a t i o n , and i f , a f t e r a r e v i e w o f t h e record, t h i s Court determined that the defendant i s , i n f a c t , c o r r e c t , we w o u l d be f o r c e d t o h o l d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t the r e v o c a t i o n , the i m p o s i t i o n of the remainder of h i s sentence i s c o r r e c t because the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o u l d n o t have i m p o s e d a s p l i t s e n t e n c e . Such a r e s u l t i s u n s o u n d and u n t e n a b l e . 10 CR-11-1537 " B e c a u s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y to revoke E n f i n g e r ' s p r o b a t i o n , i t s order r e v o k i n g E n f i n g e r ' s p r o b a t i o n i s v a c a t e d , and t h i s c a s e i s remanded t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t c o u r t to resentence Enfinger i n accordance with this opinion. " A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t E n f i n g e r was c o n v i c t e d of sexual a b u s e o f a c h i l d u n d e r 12 as t h e r e s u l t o f a ' p l e a b a r g a i n ' (C. 8 ) , t h e r e c o r d i s u n c l e a r as t o w h e t h e r E n f i n g e r ' s s e n t e n c e was p a r t o f t h e p l e a b a r g a i n . Thus, ' i t i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r t h i s C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e whether r e s e n t e n c i n g [Enfinger] w i l l affect the v o l u n t a r i n e s s of h i s p l e a . ' A u s t i n , 864 So. 2d a t 1119. I f the s p l i t s e n t e n c e was a term of Enfinger's 'plea bargain,' and, i f he moves t o withdraw h i s g u i l t y p l e a , the c i r c u i t c o u r t should conduct a h e a r i n g t o determine whether w i t h d r a w a l of the plea i s necessary to correct a manifest injustice. See R u l e 1 4 . 4 ( e ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P." E n f i n g e r v. S t a t e , , [Ms. CR-11-0458, Dec. ( A l a . C r i m . App. Similarly, Brown 2012) pleaded 14, (footnote guilty 2012] So. 3d omitted). and was improperly ordered to serve s p l i t sentences wherein the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t o r d e r Brown t o s e r v e any terms of p r o b a t i o n . "The trial c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o s p l i t [Brown's] sentence[s] without follow ordering ... probationary period[s] confinement p o r t i o n of the s e n t e n c e [ s ] . " 109. Because the split Brown's s e n t e n c e s to Moore, 871 So. 2d a t c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the 11 manner i n w h i c h the i t did, to the CR-11-1537 circuit c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o revoke t h e s p l i t sentences. the split Accordingly, the c i r c u i t p o r t i o n o f Brown's court's sentences order i s reversed c a u s e i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r t h e c i r c u i t resentence Brown i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s opinion. The c i r c u i t c o u r t s h a l l t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y that the c i r c u i t revoking and t h e court to 2 a c t i o n t o see c l e r k makes due r e t u r n t o t h i s C o u r t a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e a n d w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r t h e r e l e a s e o f this opinion. The r e t u r n t o remand s h a l l i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t of t h e proceedings c o n d u c t e d on remand. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Welch, J J . , concur. Kellum, and Burke, concurs i n the r e s u l t , with o p i n i o n . 2 B r o w n must be a f f o r d e d c o u n s e l 12 Joiner, J . , Windom, P . J . , d i s s e n t s . during h i s resentencing. CR-11-1537 JOINER, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g Although disagree I agree t h a t t h i s , the only pleaded [Ms. c a s e i s due CR-11-0458, Dec. ( A l a . C r i m . App. resentencing remove t h e In result. t o be w i t h the main o p i n i o n t o the e x t e n t on E n f i n g e r v. S t a t e , 3d i n the for the s p l i t p o r t i o n s o f Brown's as guilty to sexual an habitual sentenced, as the main abuse o f felony serve served," followed by So. at that, because E n f i n g e r child under 12, he was So. and 3d remand court explains, under offender, split, Enfinger, 2012] is to sentences. a child w h i c h was probation. 14, circuit opinion imprisonment, "time that i t s r e l i e s 2 0 1 2 ) , t o s u g g e s t t h a t on option Enfinger, remanded, I Enfinger pleaded guilty not eligible 3 to was Enfinger 12 20 to to s e n t e n c e u n d e r § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , 3 This sexual years' to supervised Court abuse receive and was ordered years' . and a therefore noted of a split this Court h e l d t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y to sentence or s p l i t Enfinger's impose a t e r m o f probation. S e c t i o n 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, s p e c i f i c a l l y exempts from e l i g i b i l i t y t o r e c e i v e a s p l i t sentence those o f f e n d e r s who have b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a " c r i m i n a l s e x o f f e n s e i n v o l v i n g a c h i l d as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 1 5 - 2 0 - 2 1 ( 5 ) , w h i c h c o n s t i t u t e s a C l a s s A or B f e l o n y . " 3 13 CR-11-1537 Id. at . Because the circuit impose a s p l i t s e n t e n c e , t h i s circuit court f o r that court Enfinger's had no authority to C o u r t remanded t h e c a s e t o t h e " t o remove t h e s p l i t p o r t i o n o f sentence." Id. at Here, u n l i k e E n f i n g e r , court . Brown was, i n fact, eligible r e c e i v e s p l i t s e n t e n c e s u n d e r § 15-18-8, A l a . Code 1975, the circuit sentences. c o u r t had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o impose Brown's Thus, u n l i k e E n f i n g e r , not the c i r c u i t court's r a t h e r , the c i r c u i t use the e r r o r i n t h i s held impose that a when split the circuit sentence split case i s of the s p l i t - t o impose t e r m s o f p r o b a t i o n . I n Moore v. S t a t e , 871 So. 2d 106 we but court fails ( A l a . C r i m . App. has to the 2003), authority impose a term p r o b a t i o n t h i s C o u r t must remand t h e c a s e t o t h e c i r c u i t "to conduct another sentencing h e a r i n g execution of [the defendant's] ... 109-10. In such circuit a case, and of the s p l i t - s e n t e n c e a c t , but, court's improper execution sentence through the f a i l u r e to the court 871 on of court and t o r e c o n s i d e r sentence." to So. the 2d a t remand "may e i t h e r s p l i t t h e s e n t e n c e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 15-18-8, [ A l a . Code 1975,] ... or, i f i t determines s e n t e n c e i s no l o n g e r a p p r o p r i a t e , i t may 14 that splitting r e i n s t a t e the the [base] CR-11-1537 sentence." State, 864 I n my Moore, So. 871 2d 395, view, So. 2d a t 110. 398-99 the o p t i o n s See ( A l a . C r i m . App. on a l s o Madden v. 2002). remand as o u t l i n e d i n Moore a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t on remand i n Brown's c a s e . Thus, as i n Moore, on remand " t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t [must] c o n d u c t a n o t h e r s e n t e n c i n g hearing and ... reconsider the execution of [Brown's] 20-year sentence. Because the 20-year s e n t e n c e was v a l i d , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may n o t change it. See Wood v. S t a t e , 602 So. 2d 1195 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1992) . However, t h e c o u r t may e i t h e r s p l i t t h e sentence i n compliance with § 15-18-8, i . e . , o r d e r i n g no more t h a n 5 y e a r s and no l e s s t h a n 3 y e a r s i n c o n f i n e m e n t f o l l o w e d by a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of p r o b a t i o n , o r , i f i t determines t h a t s p l i t t i n g the s e n t e n c e i s no l o n g e r appropriate, i t may r e i n s t a t e the f u l l 20-year sentence." 871 So. 2d a t 109-10 (emphasis a d d e d ) . t h e r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e w h e t h e r the r e s u l t of a p l e a Additionally, because t h e s p l i t s e n t e n c e s were agreement " t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must a l s o d e t e r m i n e on remand i f [Brown's] p l e a was i n d e e d a p a r t o f a p l e a a g r e e m e n t with the State. I f the court determines on r e s e n t e n c i n g t h a t s p l i t t i n g [Brown's] s e n t e n c e i s no l o n g e r a p p r o p r i a t e and t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l s p l i t t i n g o f [Brown's] s e n t e n c e was a p a r t o f a p l e a a g r e e m e n t with the State, then resentencing would be a r e j e c t i o n o f t h e p l e a a g r e e m e n t and t h e circuit [ 4 ] As a p a r t o f t h i s i n q u i r y u n d e r t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s o f t h i s case, the c i r c u i t c o u r t s h o u l d a l s o determine whether Brown e n t e r e d i n t o p l e a a g r e e m e n t s t h a t he be s e n t e n c e d t o s p l i t s e n t e n c e s w i t h no p r o b a t i o n a r y t e r m s . 4 15 CR-11-1537 c o u r t must a l l o w [Brown] t o w i t h d r a w [Brown] r e q u e s t s t o do s o . " 871 So. 2d a t 111. circuit court with 15-18-8, § on Finally, remand the thereafter conducting on the I t h i n k t h a t , i n the event the splits circuit the sentences court i s not i n compliance precluded from a revocation hearing t o determine i fthe s p l i t p o r t i o n s o f Brown's Based h i s plea i f s e n t e n c e s s h o u l d be foregoing, I result. 16 respectfully revoked. concur i n the

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.