State of Alabama v. Mitchell Roffler and Michelle Roffler
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 02/25/2011 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) 229-0649), 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, 2010-2011 _________________________ CR-08-0045 _________________________ State of Alabama v. Mitchell Roffler and Michelle Roffler Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court (CC-06-4145; CC-06-4162) On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court. WELCH, Presiding Judge. The State of Alabama appealed from the circuit court's dismissal of the 23-count indictment against Mitchell Roffler and the separate 23-count indictment against Michelle Roffler. The indictments charged the Rofflers with theft of property, CR-08-0045 and the Rofflers had argued that the indictments failed to sufficiently describe the property taken because they failed to designate whether the funds taken had been in the form of cash, check, transaction. credit-card transaction, or debit-card The circuit court agreed that the language of the indictments failed to provide the Rofflers with adequate notice of the State's charges because the charges failed to specify the means by which the Rofflers had received funds. the This Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. State v. Roffler, [No. CR-08-0045, Aug. 7, 2009] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2009). The State of Alabama petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for certiorari review. On December 22, 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court held: "[T]hat the requirements of ยง 15-8-25, Ala. Code 1975, are satisfied even if the indictment stating the monetary amount over which the defendant is allegedly exerting unauthorized control does not identify the medium of exchange. Identification of the monetary amount alone provides the defendant adequate notice of the theft to prepare his or her defense and to avoid double jeopardy." State v. Roffler, [Ms. 1090007, December 22, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. 2010). Thus, the Supreme Court determined that the indictments were legally sufficient, and it reversed this Court's judgment 2 CR-08-0045 and remanded this case for further proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with the directions of the Alabama Supreme Court, we now reverse the circuit court's judgment dismissing the indictments against the Rofflers, and we remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Windom and Kellum, JJ., concur. 3
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.
