State of Alabama v. Jackie Sue Woodall
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
rel03/02/2007WOODALL Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 242-4621), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2006-2007 _________________________ CR-04-1599 _________________________ State of Alabama v. Jackie Sue Woodall Appeal from Morgan Circuit Court (CC-04-641) On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court BASCHAB, PRESIDING JUDGE The appellee, Jackie Sue Woodall, was charged with second-degree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, a violation of §13A-12-217(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, and unlawful CR-04-1599 possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), a violation of §13A-12-212, Ala. Code 1975. Count I of the indictment alleged that the appellee "did unlawfully possess on, to-wit: April 22, 2004, in or near Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama, a precursor chemical, to-wit: pseudoephedrine, with the intent that the chemical would be used in the unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 13A-12-217 of the Code of Alabama." (C.R. 29.) The appellee filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment, which the circuit court granted. appealed from the circuit court's order The State granting the appellee's motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment. On September 30, 2005, this court dismissed the State's appeal on the ground that the State had filed a premature notice of appeal in the circuit court . On November 23, 2005, this court overruled the State's application for rehearing; withdrew our opinion of September 30, 2005; substituted a new opinion therefor; and again dismissed the State's appeal on the ground that the State had filed a premature notice of appeal in the circuit court. See State v. Woodall, [Ms. CR- 04-1599, November 23, 2005] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). On January 5, 2007, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed 2 CR-04-1599 this court's judgment on the authority of State v. Wilson, [Ms. 1050390, June 23, 2006] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2006), the companion case to this case. See State v. Woodall, [Ms. 1050389, January 5, 2007] ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2007). Wilson, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed this In court's judgment; held that the State had filed its notice of appeal as required by Rule 15.7(b), Ala. R. Crim. P., and had properly invoked this court's appellate jurisdiction; and remanded the case for this court to consider the merits of the State's appeal. See Wilson, supra. The State argues that the circuit court erroneously granted the appellee's motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment. Specifically, it contends that the circuit court's "construction of §13A-12-217(a)(2) is in error" and that the indictment correctly charged the offense of seconddegree unlawful manufacture of a controlled substance. (State's brief at p. 8.) In its order granting the appellee's motion to dismiss, the circuit court found that the indictment was defective because it alleged that the appellee possessed a single precursor substance and that §13A-12-217(a)(2), Ala. Code 1975, "requires the possession of multiple 'precursor 3 CR-04-1599 substances.'" (S.R. 13.) However, this court has held that "§13A-12-217 does not require evidence of plural precursor substances." Brand v. State, 941 So. 2d 318, 322 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). See also O'Callaghan v. State, 945 So. 2d 467 (Ala. Crim. App. 2006). Because the State was not required to prove that the appellee possessed more than one precursor substance, Count I of the indictment was not defective. Therefore, the circuit court erroneously granted the appellee's motion to dismiss Count I of the indictment. Accordingly, we reverse the circuit court's judgment and remand this case for proceedings that are consistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. McMillan, Shaw, Wise, and Welch, JJ., concur. 4
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.
