Ex parte George Blankenship. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: George Blankenship v. State of Alabama) (Madison Circuit Court: CC-81-231.61; Criminal Appeals : CR-11-1701). Writ Denied. No Opinion.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/08/2013 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1120403 Ex p a r t e George Blankenship PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In r e : George Blankenship v. S t a t e o f Alabama) (Madison C i r c u i t Court, CC-81-231.61; Court o f C r i m i n a l Appeals, CR-11-1701) STUART, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. 1120403 B o l i n , P a r k e r , M u r d o c k , Shaw, M a i n , W i s e , and B r y a n , J J . , concur. Moore, C . J . , d i s s e n t s . 2 1120403 MOORE, C h i e f J u s t i c e In degree (dissenting). 1 9 8 1 , George Blankenship pleaded robbery under t h e then newly guilty to first- e n a c t e d Alabama C r i m i n a l Code, w h i c h was e f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1980. He was s e n t e n c e d t o life imprisonment, a n d he postconviction relief, occurred prior t o January d i d not appeal. arguing that the He now charged 1, 1980, a n d t h a t , seeks conduct therefore, he p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o a s t a t u t o r y o f f e n s e t h a t d i d n o t e x i s t when he committed petition, i t . The trial and t h e Court court summarily of Criminal dismissed h i s Appeals affirmed the d i s m i s s a l i n an u n p u b l i s h e d memorandum. Under the facts alleged i n Blankenship's petition for c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w , t h e 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 to convict and t o sentence C r i m i n a l Code b e c a u s e , Blankenship he a r g u e s , b e f o r e t h a t Code t o o k e f f e c t . under t h e Alabama t h e o f f e n s e was committed T h e r e f o r e , he a r g u e s , b o t h t h e c o n v i c t i o n and t h e sentence a r e n u l l i t i e s , a n d he i s e n t i t l e d to T h e r e f o r e , I would r e l i e f u n d e r R u l e 32, A l a . R. C r i m . P. 1 A d e f e n d a n t c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e may s e e k r e l i e f on t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t "was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e n d e r judgment o r t o impose s e n t e n c e . " R u l e 3 2 . 1 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. F a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n a t t r i a l o r on a p p e a l does n o t p r e c l u d e r e l i e f . R u l e s 3 2 . 2 ( 3 ) a n d ( 5 ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. 1 3 1120403 grant the p e t i t i o n f o r the w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i t o consider the merits of Blankenship's The Rule 32 Court and of C r i m i n a l Appeals petition indictment, not claims. as a challenge construed to Blankenship's the v a l i d i t y which charged the elements of s t a t u t o r y common-law robbery. Before 2006, c o u l d be r a i s e d a t any t i m e . 2d 485, 487 ( A l a . 2001) robbery errors i n d i c t m e n t were c o n s i d e r e d t o be j u r i s d i c t i o n a l So. of h i s in defects See, e.g., Ex p a r t e Lewis, an that 811 ( " F a i l u r e t o a l l e g e an e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t o f t h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t , and the o r on d i r e c t appeal does n o t c o n s t i t u t e a w a i v e r . " ) . I n 2006, h o w e v e r , t h i s Court, in failure to r a i s e the defect at t r i a l Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 So. 2d 536 ( A l a . 2006), reversed c o u r s e and h e l d t h a t d e f e c t s i n an i n d i c t m e n t do n o t i m p l i c a t e the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t . "Under o u r h o l d i n g i n Seymour, a d e f e c t i n a c r i m i n a l i n d i c t m e n t no l o n g e r d e p r i v e s t h e t r i a l court of j u r i s d i c t i o n , as i t h a d u n d e r t h e common l a w , b u t i n s t e a d i s a n o n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l e r r o r t h a t may be w a i v e d . " Ex parte Jenkins, a l s o noted 2006), 992 So. 2d 1248, 1250 i n Ex p a r t e B a t e y , that, ( A l a . 2007). This Court 958 So. 2d 339, 342 n. 2 ( A l a . " [ i ] n Seymour, 4 we held that a defective 1120403 i n d i c t m e n t does n o t d e p r i v e t h e t r i a l c o u r t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n h e a r t h e c a s e , and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , a c l a i m t h a t an is d e f e c t i v e i s n o t exempt f r o m t h e R u l e Blankenship l a w t h a t was was not argues, bar." n o t y e t i n e f f e c t when t h e o f f e n s e was a mere e r r o r i n t h e indictment power. The legislative temporal but, i n s t e a d , was section do n o t a p p l y t o o r g o v e r n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f and .... to A.M. provisions commission thereof of law " existing § of at January 13A-1-7(c), the 1, of Code (emphasis added). This Court i n Seymour s t a t e d : "Subject-matter jurisdiction concerns a court's power t o d e c i d e c e r t a i n t y p e s o f c a s e s . ... T h a t power i s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n and t h e A l a b a m a Code. ... "Under t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n , a c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s h a l l e x e r c i s e g e n e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n a l l cases e x c e p t as may be o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by l a w . ' Amend. No. 328, § 6 . 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . C o n s t . 1901." 5 title 1980 according time Ala. the punishment Such an o f f e n s e must be c o n s t r u e d and p u n i s h e d the a circuit p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d p r i o r t o 12:01 the committed l i m i t on t h e applicability A l a b a m a C r i m i n a l Code p r o v i d e s : "The f o r any indictment h o w e v e r , t h a t c h a r g i n g him u n d e r t r a n s g r e s s i o n o f an e x p r e s s court's 32 to the 1975 1120403 946 So. is 2d a t 538 just such ( f i n a l emphasis a specific added). legislative Section 13A-1-7(c) exception to the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . See S m i t h v. S t a t e , 446 2d 68, 72 "the ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1984) ( n o t i n g t h a t i n an e a r l i e r actual offense occurred p r i o r to [the d e f e n d a n t ] required by was therefore tried the c r i m i n a l code" 13A-1-7(c) (emphasis and punished under t h e common l a w c i t i n g A l a . Code 1975, was under the Alabama dissent January w i t h o u t power t o c o n v i c t from the and as § added)). occurred before court case [ J a n u a r y 1, 1980,] I f B l a n k e n s h i p i s c o r r e c t t h a t the conduct was So. Criminal denial Code. of his certiorari. 6 him 1, 1980, and f o r which the he circuit to sentence him Therefore, I r e s p e c t f u l l y petition for a writ of

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.