Avis Dante Hinkle v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/29/2011 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, 2010-2011 CR-09-0448 A v i s Dante H i n k l e v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-08-3171; CC-08-3172; CC-08-3174; CC-08-3175) On R e t u r n JOINER, Judge. Avis Dante trafficking Code t o S e c o n d Remand Hinkle i n cocaine, 1 9 7 5 , a n d one c o u n t violation was convicted a violation of failure of one count of o f § 13A-12-231(2), A l a . to affix a t a x stamp, a o f § 4 0 - 1 7 A - 4 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , i n c a s e number CC-08- CR-09-0448 3171; one violation count of three-mile Code radius substance, a of Code 3175. 1 and 13A-12-250, of f a i l u r e of a a of a of f a i l u r e o f § 4 0 - 1 7 A - 4 , A l a . Code a t a x stamp, of a and a a CC-08- controlled substance housing within project, and 13A-12-270, A l a . to a f f i x a t a x stamp, 1975, i n c a s e number court sentenced him pursuant a CC-08- t o t h e Alabama H a b i t u a l F e l o n y O f f e n d e r A c t ( " t h e HFOA") t o l i f e for the t r a f f i c k i n g conviction, the unlawful possession of marijuana conviction, imprisonment project, 1975, i n c a s e number school within and 13A-12-270, A l a . to affix o f §§ 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 1 , 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 5 0 , The t r i a l controlled housing cocaine, having sold a controlled radius a 1 9 7 5 , i n c a s e n u m b e r CC- of unlawful d i s t r i b u t i o n 1 9 7 5 , a n d one c o u n t violation school o f § 4 0 - 1 7 A - 4 , A l a . Code three-mile violations a o f §§ 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 1 , 3 1 7 4 ; a n d one c o u n t marijuana, having sold a c o n t r o l l e d substance 1 9 7 5 , a n d one c o u n t violation of of unlawful d i s t r i b u t i o n substance, cocaine, violations possession o f § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 3 , A l a . Code 0 8 - 3 1 7 2 ; one c o u n t a unlawful imprisonment t o 15 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t f o r f o reach of the d i s t r i b u t i o n to 30 y e a r s ' convictions, and t o We note that Hinkle was charged with additional d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e s o f f e n s e s i n c a s e numbers CC-08-3173 a n d CC-08-3176; t h e j u r y f o u n d H i n k l e n o t g u i l t y o f those charges. 1 2 CR-09-0448 15 years' imprisonment for a l l sentences to run concurrently. convictions, 9(c), fine A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . pursuant trafficking trial. the The t r i a l conviction. f o r the court Hinkle to of court t o § 13A-12-231(2)a., The p a r t i e s e x p r e s s l y time each agreed the court denied the motion. court has remanded to assess Reduction Ala. Court Code Forensic the penalties Assessment P. to Trust impose This case under the fees § under c o u r t h a s now f i l e d followed. trial t h e Demand 13A-12-281, to § 36-18-7(a), A l a . conviction, f o r the conviction, i t s second date t h e Alabama and unlawful-distribution-of-a-controlled-substance trial a f o r the with Code 1 9 7 5 , f o r t h e t r a f f i c k i n g - i n - c o c a i n e The new to extend to appeal twice prescribed Fund, pursuant unlawful-possession-of-marijuana for a After conducting a A c t , i n accordance 1975, and Services this motion the motion 2 4 . 4 , A l a . R. C r i m . hearing, a a $50,000 1975, f o r t h e on t h e r e c o r d on See R u l e tax-stamp See § 13A-5- A l a . Code certain. This 3 a l s o imposed filed rule the for each conviction. r e t u r n t o o u r remand, w h i c h r e f l e c t s t h a t , o n r e m a n d , H i n k l e was a s s e s s e d $ 8 , 0 0 0 , a s a Demand Reduction Assessment as mandated 3 by § 13A-12-281, CR-09-0448 Ala. Code Trust 1975, Fund, as and $400 for mandated by Antonio four 22, Smith, separate May 30, telephoned recorded a brief sufficiency while working controlled as of July Hinkle to set up the p o l i c e . transactions each occurred cocaine 26, the A hidden video Smith within project. The analyzed and proved t o be August 3, three substance cocaine 2007, S m i t h and E x p l o s i v e s , who transactions. "'significant carry Julie a Smith and h i s c a r were buy. miles Each of a purchased telephoned Agent Agent s e t out Hanne and of these school each car searched and time S p e c i a l Agent Hanne that Birmingham in Officer Quigley's 4 were a was base. a l s o i n v o l v e d w i t h the told Smith camera i n Smith's Alicia Firearms, previous Hinkle a m o u n t o f n a r c o t i c s on h i m , ' " a n d was gun.'" Quigley was May calls H a n n e , an a g e n t w i t h t h e B u r e a u o f A l c o h o l , T o b a c c o , and made on time, the the suffice. Hinkle Each "buy," of informant, from 2007. controlled housing On an u n d e r c o v e r buys and after the 1975. r e n d i t i o n of the f a c t s w i l l 5, and Services challenge r e c o r d e d e a c h t r a n s a c t i o n , and before Forensic A l a . Code July by Alabama § 36-18-7(a), Because H i n k l e does not State's evidence, the had a "'known t o Police patrol drug Officer car to find CR-09-0448 Hinkle based on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y S m i t h . the i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d by Smith, a vehicle also d r i v e n by C e d r i c Massengale based abruptly stopped officers Officer Agent the v e h i c l e initiated a traffic approached d i d not have Officer bottle i n the middle Quigley of stop the passenger him. car, of off. a driver's observed cough syrup Massengale Officer Quigley license in plain by revealed admitted ordered substance. Lortab p i l l s While prior f o r improper s h e was knowledge and backing. side of the car while side of view a the vehicle, that right A search with brand which l a b e l had been belonged to to get out of the f o r unlawful possession of Massengale's person baggies. H i n k l e , Agent that Hinkle often carried 5 that insurance. foot, the b o t t l e Massengale arrest of Tussionex The b o t t l e ' s and p l a s t i c talking or proof Massengale's and she p l a c e d h i m under a controlled of the s t r e e t Massengale t o l d O f f i c e r Quigley contained a c o n t r o l l e d substance. torn Massengale s t r i k i n g Q u i g l e y ' s p a t r o l c a r . As a r e s u l t , w h e r e H i n k l e was s e a t e d . he and f o l l o w e d t h e c a r , Quigley approached the d r i v e r ' s Hanne on Hinkle riding i n on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d b y S m i t h . b a c k e d up, a l m o s t the they found Based Hanne, having a firearm, noticed CR-09-0448 a bulge Agent under Hanne asked significant marijuana, officers passenger-side floor Hinkle to amount was of found conducted found two both Hinkle analysis crack the digital and of the cocaine to step drugs, which under an the s c a l e s ; they 23.06 grams o f Hinkle's feet. of the be cocaine and Thereafter, proved the the and to mat. of car. vehicle found p l a s t i c baggies pants contraband revealed at back search also Massengale's and the floor inventory mat pockets. A in Subsequent 83.63 grams of powder and marijuana. I. Hinkle the argues charges against distribution the him charges trafficking offense that the for should trial court trial. not when i t j o i n e d claims that the been consolidated s a y s , the evidence and the c o n s o l i d a t i o n t h e r e f o r e p r e j u d i c e d says, admissible the evidence of cocaine t o show c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n case. 6 trial the other offenses c o n t e n d s t h a t c o n s o l i d a t i o n was the of have State at with one not State admissible two of would The been He have c h a r g e b e c a u s e , he erred him. proper b e c a u s e , the distribution i n the was trafficking CR-09-0448 Before consolidate Crim. or P., in the similar that 2008, pursuant the charged the State to Rule offenses (C. 2 commission or a l l e g e d o r scheme. separate offenses. 24, moved 13.3, were to A l a . R. o f t h e same c h a r a c t e r o r b a s e d on t h e same c o n d u c t o r o t h e r w i s e in their six November indictments a common p l a n cases on arguing connected of trial, (C. 1 1 4 - 1 5 . ) indictments 68-75.) on F e b r u a r y The 2, 2 0 0 9 . t o have been with various trial (C. 3.) H i n k l e was judge Hinkle a part charged drug-related consolidated filed the a motion to s e v e r on M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t h e trafficking him, that character conduct case the and offenses or c l o s e o r were the d i s t r i b u t i o n were i n time, otherwise t h e y were not p a r t not that of cases the would same or t h e y w e r e b a s e d on disconnected in their o f a common p l a n similar different commission, and that the A s n o t e d e a r l i e r , H i n k l e was f o u n d n o t g u i l t y d i s t r i b u t i o n charges. See s u p r a n o t e 1. 2 prejudice or scheme. 3 o f two (C. of We n o t e t h a t H i n k l e ' s m o t i o n t o s e v e r was u n t i m e l y . See R u l e 1 3 . 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. ("A d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o s e v e r o f f e n s e s ... must be made n o t more t h a n s e v e n ( 7 ) d a y s a f t e r arraignment or f i l i n g of a w r i t t e n p l e a of not g u i l t y p r i o r t o t r i a l , o r , i n t h e e v e n t t h e c o u r t has o r d e r e d c h a r g e s ... t o be t r i e d j o i n t l y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 13.3, t h e n w i t h i n s e v e n (7) d a y s o f t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , i n any e v e n t , p r i o r t o trial."). The t r i a l c o u r t , h o w e v e r , r u l e d t h a t i t w o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e u n t i m e l y m o t i o n t o s e v e r , and t h e following 3 7 CR-09-0448 121-24.) the After motion conducting to sever, a hearing, finding the t r i a l court denied as f o l l o w s : " T H E C O U R T : A n d I do t h i n k t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t s a good argument i n regard to the constructive possession issue, that actual possession i s actually exchange occurred: "THE COURT: T h e r e a c t u a l l y w a s n ' t a h e a r i n g . I granted t h e S t a t e ' s motion without h e a r i n g . There w a s n ' t an o b j e c t i o n f i l e d . The o b j e c t i o n i s now, I'm g o i n g t o c o n s i d e r i t t i m e l y f i l e d . And I d i d consider a t t h e time I granted t h e motion, t o c o n s o l i d a t e , t h e f a c t t h a t a l l o f t h e s e e v e n t s were so closely related i n time. A n d i t i s my understanding that i n regard t o the d i s t r i b u t i o n c a s e s , a t l e a s t , t h a t t h e same l a w e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c y i s i n v o l v e d , a s w e l l a s t h e same i n f o r m a n t . "[PROSECUTOR]: Y e s , ma'am. I t i s t h e -- i n t h e distribution cases, they a l l i n v o l v e t h e same informant. They a l l i n v o l v e t h e same d r u g , w h i c h i s crack cocaine, which i s t h e drug o f i s s u e i n t h e t r a f f i c k i n g case. And they i n v o l v e s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same o f f i c e r s . T h e r e a r e some d i f f e r e n c e s , b u t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g o f f i c e r s a r e m o s t l y t h e same on the t r a f f i c k i n g case. "THE COURT: As w e l l as t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n ? "[PROSECUTOR]: Y e s , ma'am. "THE COURT: A n d I do t h i n k t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t s a good argument i n r e g a r d t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i v e possession issue, that actual possession i s actually s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e i n t h e c a s e [ - i n ] c h i e f i n the t r a f f i c k i n g case." (R. 7-8.) 8 CR-09-0448 s o m e t h i n g t h a t w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e ] c h i e f i n the t r a f f i c k i n g case. i n the case[-in- "THE COURT: I r e c o g n i z e t h e t r a f f i c k i n g and possession of marijuana [ a r e ] separate. There a r e t h e same l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s i n v o l v e d i n t h a t t r a f f i c s t o p as were i n v o l v e d i n t h e m a k i n g o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n cases. fl after "THE COURT: I t d o e s h a p p e n f o u r d a y s , f i v e t h e l a s t s a l e i s made. days fl "THE COURT: I do f i n d t h a t t h e a d m i s s i o n o f 404(b)[, A l a . R. E v i d . , ] 2 0 0 1 d i s t r i b u t i o n s w o u l d h a v e a s u b s t a n t i a l p r e j u d i c i a l e f f e c t on t h e c l i e n t . T h a t i s why I'm k e e p i n g t h o s e o u t . H o w e v e r , I do believe the e n t i r e t y of these cases, these s i x indictments a r e so c l o s e l y r e l a t e d i n t i m e and f a c t s , and I t h i n k t h a t t h e S t a t e does have t h e r i g h t t o prove a c t u a l knowledge i n t h e t r a f f i c k i n g case by p r o o f o f t h e f a c t t h a t h e - - t h e i r argument t h a t he was i n v o l v e d i n t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o c a i n e . A n d t h e r e f o r e , he h a d a c t u a l k n o w l e d g e o f t h e d r u g s present i n the t r a f f i c k i n g case. S o , I'm g o i n g t o keep them c o n s o l i d a t e d . " (R. 8-12.) "A t r i a l deciding court i s vested with whether t o c o n s o l i d a t e consolidation will discretion. be r e v e r s e d cases, only See S n e l l v . S t a t e , 9 substantial discretion i n and i t s d e c i s i o n as t o f o r a c l e a r abuse o f t h a t 677 S o . 2 d 78 6, 78 9 ( A l a . CR-09-0448 C r i m . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . " Culver C r i m . App. 2008). v. S t a t e , The c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f s e p a r a t e so t h a t t h e a c c u s e d may b e t r i e d provided states, 22 S o . 3 d 4 9 9 , 507 ( A l a . f o r i n Rule i n relevant i n one t r i a l , 13.3(c), A l a . R. indictments, is specifically Crim. P. That rule part: "If offenses ... are charged in separate indictments, informations, or complaints, the court on i t s own i n i t i a t i v e o r on m o t i o n o f e i t h e r p a r t y may o r d e r t h a t t h e c h a r g e s be t r i e d t o g e t h e r ... i f t h e o f f e n s e s ... c o u l d h a v e b e e n j o i n e d i n a s i n g l e indictment, information, or complaint." Rule 13.3(a), A l a . R. C r i m . P., p r o v i d e s , i n part: "(a) O f f e n s e s . Two o r m o r e o f f e n s e s may b e j o i n e d i n an i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , o r c o m p l a i n t , if they: "(1) "(2) otherwise A r e o f t h e same o r s i m i l a r character; A r e b a s e d on t h e same c o n d u c t o r a r e connected i n t h e i r commission; or "(3) A r e a l l e g e d t o have been p a r t scheme o r p l a n . " In Alabama Ex parte Supreme consolidation or of Scott, 728 So. Court said as 2d 172 follows o f a common ( A l a . 1998 ) , regarding offenses: " ' I n Y e l d e r v . S t a t e , 630 S o . 2 d 92 (Ala. C r . App. 1991), rev'd on other g r o u n d s , 630 S o . 2 d 107 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , t h i s Court held: 10 the the CR-09-0448 "'"Joinder of offenses i s permitted i f the offenses 1) share the same or similar characteristics, o r 2) involve t h e same c o n d u c t o r c o n n e c t i o n i n t h e i r c o m m i s s i o n , o r 3) a r e p a r t o f a common s c h e m e . See Rule 1 5 . 3 ( a ) , [ A l a . ] R. C r i m . P. Temp. (now Rule 13.3(a), [Ala.] R. Crim. P.). See a l s o B u t l e r v . S t a t e , 439 S o . 2 d 210 ( A l a . C r . App. 1983). ' J o i n d e r , and thus consolidation, i s appropriate where t h e c r i m e s a r e o f s i m i l a r character, meaning nearly c o r r e s p o n d i n g , r e s e m b l i n g i n many respects, or having a general likeness. United States v. Werner, 620 F . 2 d 9 2 2 , 926 ( 2 d Cir. 1980).' Ex p a r t e Hinton, 548 S o . 2 d 5 6 2 , 566 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 493 U.S. 9 6 9 , 110 S. C t . 4 1 9 , 107 L. E d . 2 d 3 8 3 (1989). The q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r the offenses a r e o f a same o r similar character so that a person evaluating the crimes would b e l i e v e that the offenses were committed by the same person. S e e K i n g v . S t a t e , 518 So. 2 d 880 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) . " "'630 So. 2d a t 95-96.' " G a g l i a r d i v. S t a t e , App. 1996)." 728 695 S o . 2 d 2 0 6 , 207 So. 2d a t 1 8 1 . 11 (Ala. Cr. CR-09-0448 In Alabama Ex parte Supreme character" prong Tisdale, Court as 990 So. discussed 2d 280 the ( A l a . 2007), "same or similar follows: "This Court d i s c u s s e d t h e 'same or similar character' basis for consolidation i n Ex parte Pincheon, 751 S o . 2 d 1 2 1 9 ( A l a . 1999). Quoting K e n n e d y v . S t a t e , 640 S o . 2 d 22 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1993), t h i s Court s t a t e d : "'"Rule 13.3(a) i s ' p a t t e r n e d a f t e r Rule 8(a) of the F e d e r a l Rules of C r i m i n a l Procedure.' H. M a d d o x , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e 405 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . I n d e c i d i n g c o n s o l i d a t i o n c l a i m s under Rule 13.3,A l a . R. C r i m . P., t h i s C o u r t h a s f o l l o w e d t h e c a s e l a w i n t e r p r e t i n g F e d e r a l R u l e 8. S e e , e.g., H i n t o n v . S t a t e , 548 S o . 2 d 5 4 7 , 554 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 8 ) , a f f i r m e d , Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 S o . 2 d 5 6 2 , 566 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 4 93 U.S. 9 6 9 , 110 S. C t . 4 1 9 , 107 L. E d . 2 d 383 (1 98 9 ) ; L a n g h a m v . S t a t e , 4 94 S o . 2 d 9 1 0 , 915 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 98 6 ) . One n o t e d c o m m e n t a t o r on t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s has o b s e r v e d : "'"'It is the "same or s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r " aspect of Rule 8(a) which has provoked the g r e a t e s t c o n t r o v e r s y and p r o v e d t h e most d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t . ... The a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t this form of j o i n d e r are s t r o n g e r than those a g a i n s t the o t h e r forms of j o i n d e r under Rule 8 ( a ) . When the government joins offenses based on the same acts or t r a n s a c t i o n s or connected acts or transactions, the prosecution i s spared the burden of p r o v i n g the 12 the CR-09-0448 same s e t o f f a c t s m o r e t h a n o n c e . T h e r e i s no c o m p a r a b l e s a v i n g o f t r i a l t i m e when o f f e n s e s t h a t a r e r e l a t e d o n l y b y b e i n g o f t h e same type are joined, since the offenses a r e u s u a l l y proven by different bodies of evidence. Thus, when totally unrelated, similar offenses are joined, defendant faces a "considerable" r i s k of p r e j u d i c e . ' "'"8 M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 5 8 . 0 5 [ 1 ] a t 8-17 a n d 5 8 . 0 5 [ 4 ] a t 8-21 t o 8-22 ( 2 d e d . 1991) (footnotes omitted). 472 "'"As we o b s e r v e d i n J e n k i n s v . S t a t e , S o . 2 d 1128 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 5 ) : "'"'"Decisions applying the 'same o r s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r ' t e s t have g e n e r a l l y f a i l e d ' t o p r o v i d e criteria which would provide g u i d a n c e as t o t h e p r e c i s e s c o p e of t h i s r u l e . ' The v i e w s e e m s t o be g a i n i n g a c c e p t a n c e , however, that the most important c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether evidence o f one o f f e n s e w o u l d h a v e b e e n admissible at a t r i a l of the other offense."' " ' " J e n k i n s , 472 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 2 9 ( q u o t i n g C. Wright, Federal P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C r i m i n a l 2 d § 143 ( 1 9 8 2 ) ) . " ' "751 S o . 2 d a t 1222 ( q u o t i n g K e n n e d y , 640 S o . 2 d a t 28-29) (emphasis a d d e d ) . Both t h i s Court and t h e Court o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e most i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s c a n be c o n s o l i d a t e d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e y a r e o f t h e same o r s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s 13 CR-09-0448 w h e t h e r e v i d e n c e o f e a c h o f f e n s e w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e in a t r i a l of the other. S e e E x p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 So. 2 d 5 6 2 , 566 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; K e n n e d y v . S t a t e , 640 So. 2 d a t 2 9 . S e e a l s o L e w i s v . S t a t e , 889 S o . 2 d 623, 661 ( A l a . Crim. App. 2003) ('Thus, consolidation i n this case was p r o p e r only i f evidence o f e a c h o f f e n s e w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e a t a separate t r i a l of each of the other o f f e n s e s . ' ) . " 990 So. 2d a t 283-84. Furthermore, "'[T]he "common s c h e m e o r p l a n " p r o v i s i o n of Rule 1 3 . 3 i s l i m i t e d b y t h e "common scheme or plan" exception to the rule excluding c o l l a t e r a l crimes evidence. That i s , m u l t i p l e o f f e n s e s a l l e g e d t o have been c o m m i t t e d b y t h e same d e f e n d a n t may n o t b e c o n s o l i d a t e d and t r i e d j o i n t l y under t h e "common s c h e m e o r p l a n " p r o v i s i o n o f R u l e 13.3 u n l e s s e v i d e n c e o f e a c h o f f e n s e w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e , u n d e r t h e "common s c h e m e o r plan" exception to the c o l l a t e r a l crimes exclusionary rule, at a separate t r i a l of the other o f f e n s e . S e e K i n g v . S t a t e , 518 So. 2 d [ 8 8 0 , ] 884 & n . 2 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 7 ) ] ; E x p a r t e H i n t o n , 548 S o . 2 d [ 5 6 2 , ] 566 [ ( A l a . 1989)].' " K e n n e d y v . S t a t e , 640 S o . 2 d 2 2 , 29 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1993). T h u s , c o n s o l i d a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e was proper only i f evidence o f e a c h o f f e n s e w o u l d be a d m i s s i b l e a t a separate t r i a l of each o f t h e other offenses. "'On the trial f o r the alleged commission of a p a r t i c u l a r crime, evidence of t h e accused's having committed another act or crime i s not a d m i s s i b l e i fthe only p r o b a t i v e f u n c t i o n of such evidence i s t o prove bad character and t h e accused's conformity therewith. This i s a general exclusionary rule which prevents the 14 CR-09-0448 i n t r o d u c t i o n of p r i o r a c t s or crimes f o r the sole purpose of s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the a c c u s e d i s m o r e l i k e l y t o be g u i l t y o f t h e crime i n q u e s t i o n . This rule i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e whether the o t h e r crime or a c t was c o m m i t t e d b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e one f o r which the defendant i s presently being tried fl I "'The f o r e g o i n g e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e d o e s not work to e x c l u d e e v i d e n c e of a l l c r i m e s o r a c t s , o n l y s u c h as a r e o f f e r e d t o show the defendant's bad character and c o n f o r m i t y t h e r e w i t h on t h e o c c a s i o n o f t h e now-charged crime. I f the defendant's commission of another crime or misdeed i s r e l e v a n t f o r some o t h e r m a t e r i a l p u r p o s e i n t h e c a s e t h e n i t may be a d m i t t e d . ' "C. G a m b l e , M c E l r o y ' s A l a b a m a E v i d e n c e § 6 9 . 0 1 ( 1 ) (5th ed. 1996) (footnotes omitted). The other p u r p o s e s f o r w h i c h c o l l a t e r a l - c r i m e s e v i d e n c e may be a d m i s s i b l e , i . e . , the e x c e p t i o n s to the e x c l u s i o n a r y rule, include: "'"(1) Relevancy to prove physical capacity, skill, or means t o c o m m i t t h e n o w - c h a r g e d c r i m e ; (2) p a r t o f t h e r e s g e s t a e or part of a continuous transaction; (3) relevancy to prove scienter or guilty k n o w l e d g e ; (4) r e l e v a n c y t o p r o v e c r i m i n a l i n t e n t ; (5) r e l e v a n c y t o prove plan, d e s i g n , scheme, or system; (6) r e l e v a n c y t o prove motive; (7) r e l e v a n c y t o prove identity; (8) r e l e v a n c y t o r e b u t special defenses; and (9) 15 CR-09-0448 relevancy crimes."' in various particular " N i c k s v . S t a t e , 521 So. 2d 1 0 1 8 , 1026 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987 ) , a f f ' d , 521 So. 2 d 1035 ( A l a . 1 98 8 ) , q u o t i n g N e l s o n v . S t a t e , 511 So. 2 d 2 2 5 , 233 (Ala. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 6 ) , a f f ' d , 511 So. 2 d 248 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h e s e e x c e p t i o n s do n o t a p p l y u n l e s s 'there i s a r e a l and o p e n i s s u e a s t o one o r more o f those "other purposes."' Bowden v. S t a t e , 538 So. 2d 1226, 1227 (Ala. 1988)." L e w i s v. S t a t e , 8 8 9 So. Furthermore, the discretion counts ... of will discretion.'" Crim. 236 App. "'the the only 2d 623, 660-61 granting of trial be a court severance and reversed G a g l i a r d i v. 1996) (Ala. Crim. State, So. ( q u o t i n g S u m m e r l i n v. (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)). Rule a clear 2d to sever abuse 206, S t a t e , 594 13.4(a), 2003). rests within i t s refusal for 695 App. 208 So. A l a . R. of (Ala. 2d 235, Crim. P., provides: " I f i t appears t h a t a defendant or the s t a t e i s p r e j u d i c e d by a j o i n d e r o f o f f e n s e s o r o f d e f e n d a n t s i n an i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , o r c o m p l a i n t or by s u c h j o i n d e r f o r t r i a l t o g e t h e r , t h e c o u r t may order an e l e c t i o n o r s e p a r a t e t r i a l s o f c o u n t s , g r a n t a severance of defendants, or p r o v i d e whatever o t h e r relief justice requires." "An appellant discretion 'compelling who when argues i t refused that the to grant prejudice' before he 16 trial a court severance is entitled to abused must relief. its prove Ex CR-09-0448 parte So. Hinton, 3d 548 S o . 2 d 5 6 2 , 5 6 6 a t 507. "A mere enough." showing Ex p a r t e H i n t o n , Moreover, "[n]o prejudice easily have crimes." (Ala. abused and App. this i t s we cannot i n their See a l s o Cir. 1995) combined were similar determining we are l a i d whether historically under separate the charged i n which S t a t e s v. Boulanger, i s proper clearly for trial same or crime similar otherwise 1 3 . 3 , A l a . R. Crim. 54 F . 3 d 9 6 7 , 973 ( 1 s t counts are considered statute, properly whether whether they o r modes o f o p e r a t i o n , a n d conduct 444 F . 3 d 7 6 , 87 i f the offenses charged 17 court o r where have t h e same the ("Joinder the 677 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 789 the See R u l e locations, United of U n i t e d S t a t e s v. T a y l o r , frame of could The t r a f f i c k i n g conduct involve similar victims, time ( A l a . 1989). the charges to sever. commission. for trial, charges i s not the jury say the t r i a l crimes involved ("In ... evidence i n consolidating distribution connected the the where See S n e l l v . S t a t e , discretion and prejudice 1995). case, character P. results i n denying H i n k l e ' s motion the o f some C u l v e r , 22 548 S o . 2 d 5 6 2 , 566 separate I d . a t 566. Crim. In or kept ( A l a . 1989)." o c c u r r e d . " ) , and ( 1 s t C i r . 2006) ' a r e o f t h e same CR-09-0448 or similar character, transaction, common or scheme construed States or this v.] Further, time of F.3d 499, connected plan.' rule generously in 301 indictment.' 503 was J u l y 5, 2007. Id. (1st C i r . F.3d found or the same Crim. favor [27,] the The P. 8(a). of 35 [(1st (citing United and first 2d 631, the 633 occurred the of t h r e e the charged offenses on May Cir. motion we assess v. the Edgar, 2007; the the 82 to found g u i l t y occurred on A u g u s t shared App. 1991) sufficient Green v. was were proper of a for State, (holding that for t r i a l indictments 18 See 3, sufficient f a i l e d t o show sever. the last i n c o n s o l i d a t i n g the o f f e n s e s indictments in 2002)]. charge f o r which 30, offenses (Ala. Crim. consolidation [United c l o s e i n time to distribution b e c a u s e H i n k l e has denying have i t s case at States a 1996))."). p r e j u d i c e , no e r r o r o c c u r r e d and g o v e r n m e n t saw or of We joinder. t r a f f i c k i n g charge occurred because act constitute parts c h a r g e f o r w h i c h H i n k l e was 2007. similarities The guilty Thus, So. on t r a f f i c k i n g crime occurred crimes. distribution 599 with R. i n t e r m s o f how distribution trial based Fed. Melendez, Here, the on are ' " [ s ] i m i l a r " d o e s n o t mean " i d e n t i c a l , " a n d similarity Hinkle are or the where similar CR-09-0448 character and "[t]he allegedly occurred offenses within charged a period i n the 3 of 16 indictments days and could a r g u a b l y be ' c o n n e c t e d i n t h e i r c o m m i s s i o n ' w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g of [then] Rule 15.3(a)(ii), Thomas v . S t a t e , (holding that marijuana trial [Ala.] R. C r . P. 508 S o . 2 d 3 1 0 , 312 two i n 1984 indictments and 1986 because the offenses ( A l a . Crim. for were felony properly v. B a b b i t t , transactions similar 944-45 four on 683 F . 2 d 2 1 , 23 two character"); charges against charges United United States, 310 different dates, possession of consolidated for States drug defendant; F.2d Lewis, formed court 715 "are of v. (cocaine the 626 same or F.2d 940, the basis for a l l concluded that or s i m i l a r 715, See, e.g., U n i t e d ( 1 s t C i r . 1982) dates (same " a r e o f t h e same defendant u n l a w f u l l y two different (D.C. C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) App. 1987) w e r e t h e same a n d w e r e b a s e d on t h e same t y p e o f c o n d u c t b y t h e same o f f e n d e r ) . States Temp."); character"); the four Terry ( 5 t h C i r . 1 962) v. (where t r a n s f e r r e d m a r i j u a n a t o same p e r s o n s on joinder i s proper since offenses were identical). The The offenses trafficking involved charge similar required 19 conduct that on H i n k l e ' s the State prove part. that CR-09-0448 Hinkle possessed constructive presence 1366 the cocaine. possession, circumstances reasonable the from doubt of the drug. ( A l a . 1983). informed the some facts or could find beyond knowledge of had Story, i n time H i n k l e was a p a s s e n g e r , instances, and investigating most of officers. of four fact same ( A l a . Crim. the Hinkle sold the who h a d t h a t H i n k l e h a d r e c e i v e d a l a r g e amount and the a 435 S o . 2 d 1 3 6 5 , c o c a i n e , t o t h e same c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t drug--cocaine, joinder on t h e drugs were d i s c o v e r e d i n o f n a r c o t i c s a n d t h a t he was a r m e d . 1151-52 relies jury See Ex p a r t e the o f f i c e r s connected State accused Shortly before v e h i c l e i n which same d r u g , the the adduce i t must which that When because they confidential the same involved clearly the informant same in a l l law-enforcement and S e e M c L e o d v . S t a t e , 581 S o . 2 d 1 1 4 4 , App. counts The o f f e n s e s w e r e 1990) (finding of unlawful no error distribution of i n the cocaine b e c a u s e a l l f o u r o f f e n s e s w e r e c l e a r l y o f t h e same c h a r a c t e r ) ; Thomas, 508 S o . 2 d a t 3 1 2 . Additionally, could easily Summerlin, "[n]o prejudice separate the evidence 594 S o . 2 d a t 2 3 6 . results of the separate Nothing 20 where i n the record the jury crimes." suggests CR-09-0448 t h a t t h e j u r o r s were u n a b l e t o s e p a r a t e to each case. evidence it Instead, of the separate convicted Hinkle the jury crimes, o f two that the jury of each defendant separated the that two d i s t r i b u t i o n (Ala. Crim. offenses This but offenses. See App. 1990) ( " I t d i d make an i n d e p e n d e n t and each charge. relating by t h e f a c t as e v i d e n c e d M o b l e y v . S t a t e , 563 S o . 2 d 2 9 , 32 apparent clearly of the d i s t r i b u t i o n a c q u i t t e d h i m as t o t h e o t h e r is the evidence evaluation i s shown by t h e f a c t that the j u r y returned a not g u i l t y v e r d i c t i n the a p p e l l a n t ' s favor of f o r possession trafficking ("Clearly crimes, the the Culver, jury separated by o f sodomy, the evidence only of the while Snell, the the fact a l s o c o n v i c t i n g him 677 evidence that ("The 2d of at the of involving 789-90 separate Snell of enticement."); j u r y was m o s t c e r t a i n l y of the four crimes crimes So. i t convicted but not the offense 22 S o . 3 d a t 510 separate Culver i n cocaine."); as e v i d e n c e d offense of marijuana, able to because i t c o n v i c t e d possession of obscene matter."). F u r t h e r m o r e , we n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l the jury separately thoroughly and to as to determine i t s duty whether 21 court here i n s t r u c t e d to the consider State each had case met i t s CR-09-0448 burden of p r o o f beyond 417-21, 423-28.) prejudice" a r e a s o n a b l e doubt "'These i n s t r u c t i o n s from the j o i n d e r States v. M e l e n d e z , United S t a t e s v. N a t a n e l , Tariq-Madyun 2010). v. See we consolidating and F.3d State, United Accordingly, charges 301 of the 27, 938 59 i n each " m i n i m i z e d any [separate] 36 possible United (1st C i r . 2002), quoting F.2d 302, 308 (1st C i r . 1991)." 3d 744, 750 (Ala. Crim. So. States v. trafficking in refusing (R. counts. Taylor, 54 charge and App. F.3d at court cannot conclude that the t r i a l the case. erred i n the to sever the c h a r g e s . 974. distribution 4 II. Hinkle seized from unlawfully 332 also was s e a r c h was that the search the vehicle obtained (2009). search claims More illegal error in because, which in violation he he was Hinkle under the on could of Massengale's not have car would contends own (1) U.S. that the that the safety; uncovered were 536 reasonably believed have drugs passenger grounds not n e c e s s a r y f o r the o f f i c e r s ' officers a the of A r i z o n a v. Gant, particularly, Gant says, and that evidence (2) a of H i n k l e d i d n o t r a i s e on a p p e a l t h e argument t h a t t h e consolidation for t r i a l of the unlawful-possession-ofm a r i j u a n a c h a r g e and t h e t a x - s t a m p c h a r g e s was i m p r o p e r . 4 22 CR-09-0448 the offense State was on submits a which that passenger lawful-arrest the the a r r e s t was search was lawful exception and of the under the made--trafficking. v e h i c l e i n which both the plain-view The Hinkle incident-to-a- exception. " ' " T h i s c o u r t has l o n g h e l d t h a t warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Chevere v. State, 607 So. 2d 361, 368 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992). These exceptions are: (1) p l a i n view; (2) c o n s e n t ; (3) i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t ; (4) h o t p u r s u i t o r emergency; (5) probable cause coupled w i t h e x i g e n t circumstances; (6) s t o p a n d f r i s k situations; and (7) inventory searches. Ex p a r t e H i l l e y , 484 So. 2d 485, 488 (Ala. 1985); Chevere, supra, 607 So. 2d at 3 6 8."' " S t a t e v . M i t c h e l l , 722 So. 1 998), q u o t i n g R o k i t s k i v. ( A l a . C r . App. 1997)." State v. Otwell, Another recognized 733 So. 2d exception 950, 2d 814 State, 952 ( A l a . Cr. 715 So. 2d (Ala. Crim. App. 859 App. 1999). to the warrant requirement i s the " a u t o m o b i l e e x c e p t i o n , " w h i c h a l l o w s law e n f o r c e m e n t to search an a u t o m o b i l e b a s e d on p r o b a b l e State, 948 So. 2d 583 (Ala. Crim. App. 23 cause alone. 2006). H a r r i s v. CR-09-0448 " ' U n d e r T e r r y v . O h i o , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. C t . 1 8 6 8 , 20 L. E d . 2 d 889 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , l a w e n f o r c e m e n t officers may conduct investigatory stops of persons or v e h i c l e s i f t h e y have a " r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y has o c c u r r e d , i s o c c u r r i n g , or i s about t o o c c u r . See g e n e r a l l y C a f f i e v . S t a t e , 516 So. 2d 822, 825-26 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1986), [ a f f i r m e d ] , 5 1 6 S o . 2 d 831 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . " Lamar v . S t a t e , 578 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 2 , 1 3 8 5 ( A l a . C r i m . App.), cert. denied, 596 So. 2d 659 ( A l a . 1991). "Reasonable s u s p i c i o n i s a l e s s demanding s t a n d a r d than probable cause," A l a b a m a v . W h i t e , 4 9 6 U.S. 3 2 5 , 3 3 0 , 110 S. C t . 2 4 1 2 , 2 4 1 6 , 110 L. E d . 2 d 3 0 1 (1990), r e q u i r i n g o n l y t h a t t h e d e t a i n i n g officers "have a particularized and o b j e c t i v e basis f o r suspecting the person detained of criminal activity," Webb v . S t a t e , 500 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 1 (Ala. Crim. App.), c e r t . d e n i e d , 500 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 2 (Ala. 1986).'" State v. Davis, In 2003), State this 7 S o . 3 d 4 6 8 , 470 ( A l a . C r i m . v. Court Gargus, 855 So. 2d 587 App. 2008). (Ala. Crim. stated: "'"'When officers lawfully arrest an a u t o m o b i l e occupant, they may search the passenger compartment o f t h e a u t o m o b i l e as a contemporaneous i n c i d e n t ofthe a r r e s t , a n d t h e y a l s o may e x a m i n e the contents of c o n t a i n e r s found in the automobile.'" S t a t e v. Otwell, 733 So. 2d at 954 , quoting United States v. Diaz-Lizaraza, 981 F . 2 d 1 2 1 6 , 1222 (11th C i r . 1993). "This i s s o e v e n t h o u g h t h e a p p e l l a n t was a l r e a d y h a n d c u f f e d and p l a c e d i n 24 App. CR-09-0448 t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r ' s c a r when t h e appellant's c a r was searched." M a s o n v . S t a t e , 768 So. 2d 981, 999 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998), aff'd, 768 So. 2d 1008 (Ala. 2 0 0 0 ) , c i t i n g Gundrum v. State, 563 So. 2 d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).' " [ B a i r d v . S t a t e , ] 849 So. 2 d [ 2 2 3 ] a t 2 2 9 - 3 0 [ ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ] . I n S h e f f i e l d v . S t a t e , 606 So. 2 d 183 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) , t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : " ' A f t e r a r r e s t i n g t h e d r i v e r o f an a u t o m o b i l e , an o f f i c e r "may, as a c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s i n c i d e n t of that arrest, search the passenger compartment" of that car, including "the c o n t e n t s o f any c o n t a i n e r s found w i t h i n the passenger compartment." New Y o r k v. Belton, 453 U.S. 4 5 4 , 4 6 0 , 101 S. C t . 2 8 6 0 , 2 8 6 4 , 69 L. E d . 2 d 768 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ; D a n i e l s v . S t a t e , 416 So. 2 d 7 6 0 , 763 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 1 9 8 2 ) . See a l s o , S t a t e v . C a l h o u n , 502 So. 2 d 808 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . ' " 60 6 So. 2d a t 187. Additionally, i n Mason v. S t a t e , 768 So. 2 d 981 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ) , a f f ' d , 768 So. 2 d 1008 ( A l a . 2000), t h i s Court s t a t e d : " ' E v e n i f we w e r e t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s e a r c h was n o t a u t h o r i z e d p u r s u a n t t o an i n v e n t o r y search, the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the motion t o s u p p r e s s i s due t o be affirmed because the search of the a p p e l l a n t ' s v e h i c l e was l a w f u l as a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t . S h e f f i e l d , 606 So. 2d a t 187. T h i s i s so e v e n t h o u g h the a p p e l l a n t was a l r e a d y h a n d c u f f e d a n d p l a c e d in the police officer's car when the a p p e l l a n t ' s c a r was s e a r c h e d . Gundrum v. State, 563 So. 2d 27 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990).' 25 CR-09-0448 "768 855 So. relied So. 2d 2d a t at 999." 590-591. Gargus on t h e r u l e i n New and the Y o r k v. B e l t o n , cases cited 453 U.S. therein 454 (1981), which held " t h a t when a p o l i c e m a n h a s made a l a w f u l c u s t o d i a l arrest the of contemporaneous compartment States v. Supreme 'widely occupant automobile, of that automobile." Davis, Court 598 later understood the arrestee the search.' " [ p ] o l i c e may he I d . a t 460. 1259 explained, gain [556 U.S. however, rule the i t had search i t s opinion compartment [was] no ,] 129 United announced reasonable to b e l i e v e of a r r e s t . " at the the time vehicle G a n t , 556 U.S. addressed the a p p l i c a b i l i t y ("As the Belton was i n c i d e n t to the possibility S. C t . a t States i n Belton, of Gant 26 of the Court holding that occupant's distance search of the or contains evidence at i t is This Court . of 1718.") Supreme a r r e s t only i f the arrestee i s w i t h i n reaching offense in United to the v e h i c l e at the time at a the passenger a v e h i c l e i n c i d e n t to a recent passenger as See a l s o a v e h i c l e search access may, ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2010) occupant even i f t h e r e Gant, the F.3d to allow could Gant, replaced an i n c i d e n t of that a r r e s t , search a r r e s t of a recent In of of i n S t a t e v. J e m i s o n , the first [Ms. CR-09-0448 CR-09-0399, 2010) Dec. (holding 17, that Gant, s e t t i n g out a vehicle direct United to to the a The Jemison. actions rule We rule first case, applies and Hinkle that, rule time of i n Gant, the however, were "in plain the ground that evidence view." and, in to the 27 of So. any 3d search case, (2) the at of record Massengale were not within compartment." The searching drugs o f f i c e r s also See i f so, Massengale's they reasonably believed related The v e h i c l e and yet case. suppression In t h i s passenger justified not on [the o f f i c e r s ' ] t h e i r a r r e s t s , both back of the officers, find "(1) commands whether of would Hinkle's in applied pending officers' were at the the to question distance on was Jemison, at the App. search arrest, i n v i o l a t i o n of Gant." "reaching vehicle which whether Massengale's v e h i c l e v i o l a t e d Gant. indicates Crim. d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n was announced exclusionary evidence seized (Ala. occupant's must c o n s i d e r v i o l a t e d the the 3d Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n defendant's i n Gant a l s o T h u s , we whether States recent a p p e a l , because the final). So. c i r c u m s t a n c e s u n d e r w h i c h p o l i c e may incident retroactively 2010] had that Officer Quigley probable cause they saw to CR-09-0448 believe given that had committed the information informant and Hinkle that they Hinkle 29, 2011] had from had a l a r g e t h a t he was a r m e d . April some drug-related a reliable confidential amount o f n a r c o t i c s on h i m See W o r t h y v . S t a t e , So. 3d offense , [Ms. C R - 1 0 - 0 0 4 4 , (Ala. Crim. App. 2011) ("'Probable cause e x i s t s where a l l t h e f a c t s and circumstances within the o f f i c e r ' s to warrant person of reasonable been o r i s b e i n g in So. the place knowledge caution are s u f f i c i e n t to conclude committed and t h a t t o be s e a r c h e d . ' " 2 d 6 3 6 , 640 (Ala. Crim. of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s - - t h e a gun, t h e d i s c o v e r y the passenger-side driver's believed was the t r a f f i c pills officers stop, the bulge f e e t , and t h e and p l a s t i c could i n "plain baggies on have reasonably would uncover evidence of drug possession, or t r a f f i c k i n g a passenger. informant a l a r g e amount o f n a r c o t i c s mat a t H i n k l e ' s of Lortab person--the that they distribution, floor 695 the t o t a l i t y of a c o n t r o l l e d substance under the Given has found v. S t a t e , t i p from the c o n f i d e n t i a l at the d r i v e r ' s feet during discovery Woods App. 1996)). view" subsequent an o f f e n s e c o n t r a b a n d w o u l d be (quoting t h a t H i n k l e had i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n and that a i n the vehicle Accordingly, 28 the o f f i c e r s i n which Hinkle d i d not v i o l a t e CR-09-0448 the r u l e announced evidence of drug-related Moreover, violated lawful be Gant a p p l i e d to 3d recently police by at . held, as apply. D a v i s v. 131 S. no believe Notably, relief vehicle exclusionary United did [the car for in 2419 after rule States Jemison, that his should Jemison, Supreme Court when the reliance exclusionary rule 0 9 - 1 1 3 2 8 , J u n e 16, (No. the officers] actions." i n o b j e c t i v e l y reasonable U.S., with the the precedent, Ct. assume t h a t good-faith Court conduct a search appellate Hinkle not this Massengale's [Massengale]'s [the o f f i c e r s ] ' s binding , were to searching do searching offenses. " e v e n i f we a r r e s t , we So. i n Gant by 2011) (2011). respect Consequently, to his does not U.S. Gant suppression on affords claim. III. Hinkle an contends t h a t the evidentiary "substantial "Motion Ala. 9, to Code 2009. motion. hearing on assistance" Enforce 1975,] trial his to Agreement and to the court erred assertion that police. Pursuant to [§] Sentencing filed 151-52.) The (C. 153-54.) The State State 29 he Hinkle Continue (C. i n denying an contends him rendered filed a 13A-12-232(b)[, Hearing" opposition that there on July to that is no CR-09-0448 adverse r u l i n g on this review. Court to Pursuant may move to the the § i s s u e and that there 13A-12-232(b), sentencing court Ala. to i s thus nothing Code reduce sentence of a person c o n v i c t e d of a v i o l a t i o n Ala. in Code 1975, the a r r e s t or Hinkle cites 1987), for i f the person p r o v i d e s Drewry, proposition 519 that f a i l e d to a l l o w H i n k l e to provide the trial court hearing on m u s t be met this or the So. of § before According § 20-2-81(b) 5 2d the 13A-12-231, 591 State crime. (Ala. Crim. an to Drewry, three be App. unintentionally "substantial assistance" may the substantial assistance u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y f a i l e d to hold issue. State suspend c o n v i c t i o n of p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n the S t a t e v. the 1975, for and evidentiary conditions applied: " F i r s t , t h e r e m u s t be a d e f e n d a n t who h a s b e e n f o u n d g u i l t y o r who has p l e a d e d g u i l t y to a t r a f f i c k i n g offense. Second, t h e d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y must have f i l e d a motion under § 20-2-81(b), r e q u e s t i n g t h a t the sentencing court reduce or suspend the defendant's sentence because of h i s having rendered assistance which the district attorney has S e c t i o n 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 3 2 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, was f o r m e r l y § 20¬ 2-81, A l a . Code 1975. I t was t r a n s f e r r e d t o § 13A-12-232 by A c t s 1988, 1 s t Ex. S e s s . , No. 88-918, § 2 ( 5 ) , effective S e p t e m b e r 30, 1988. 5 30 CR-09-0448 d e t e r m i n e d t o be ' s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e . ' Third, the sentencing court must itself find, before applying the p r o v i s i o n s of § 20-2-81(b), that the assistance rendered was i n fact 'substantial assistance.'" Hagedorn 1990) (citing In not v. S t a t e , sentencing (Ala. Crim. App. 594)). the d i s t r i c t rendered reduce attorney's office did Hinkle's in § sentence sentence As 13A-12-232(b), the court because t o reduce or of h i s having no s u c h motion was made d i dnot e r r i n f a i l i n g to hold an e v i d e n t i a r y on H i n k l e ' s Because that "substantial assistance." set forth the defendant's court suspend m u s t move t h e s e n t e n c i n g assistance. trial or rendered and as attorney suspend hearing court i n Drewry district the 519 So. 2 d a t case, of h i s having stated 7 80-8 1 a motion pursuant t o § 13A-12-232(b), requesting because to Drewry, the instant file the 570 S o . 2 d 7 80 , motion seeking to apply § here, 13A-12-232(b). IV. Hinkle not argues that his prior felony convictions have been used t o enhance h i s s e n t e n c e State filed convictions a notice of intent t o enhance h i s sentence 31 to i n this use case. Hinkle's i n the i n s t a n t case should The prior under CR-09-0448 the HFOA. opposing (C. 110-11.) the use of the p r i o r purposes. (C. 159-95.) Defendant's Motion 99.) filed filed, Prior filed trial judge motion f o r enhancement an " O p p o s i t i o n t o Convictions." t r e a t e d H i n k l e ' s motion R. C r i m . P., p e t i t i o n , posttrial convictions The S t a t e to Exclude a At the sentencing hearing, the t r i a l the motions The Hinkle (R. 1 9 6 - court considered as a R u l e and d e n i e d t h a t p e t i t i o n . 32, A l a . (R. 4 4 6 - 5 7 . ) stated: "THE COURT: A l l right. I ' l l g e t b a c k t o my original position i n a minute. B u t e v e n i f he was i l l e g a l l y s e n t e n c e d i n t h e t a x stamp c a s e s , he w o u l d still have t h r e e p r i o r felonies. Even i f I s e t those sentences a s i d e and sentenced him under t h e l a w , t h e c u m u l a t i v e t i m e , he w o u l d s t i l l h a v e t h r e e p r i o r f e l o n i e s , w e ' r e s t i l l i n t h e same b o a t a s f a r as H a b i t u a l F e l o n y O f f e n d e r A c t g o e s . "THE COURT: Y o u d o n ' t n e e d t o go t h a t f a r . A l l right. I n r e g a r d t o [ H i n k l e ' s ] m o t i o n h e r e , I am g o i n g t o t r e a t i t a s i f i t w e r e a R u l e 3 2 , a s I do many letters that I get sent from people incarcerated a l l the time. A n d t h e n show t h a t h e ' s i n d i g e n t , I'm t o w a i v e t h a t f e e f o r a R u l e 3 2 , I'm g o i n g t o c o n s i d e r i t a R u l e 3 2 . A n d I'm g o i n g t o deny the Rule 32, based upon the Court's understanding of the present laws, i n that t h i s i s n o t a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e [ ; ] t h e r e f o r e , he i s o u t o f t i m e i n h i s f i l i n g o f t h e R u l e 32 on t h i s i s s u e . " (R. 453, 456-57.) 32 CR-09-0448 The r e c o r d for shows distributing convictions that a for Hinkle has t h r e e controlled failure to substance affix a tax 13A-12-211 and 40-17A-4, A l a . Code 1975. argument i s that the sentences failure-to-affix-tax-stamp he should be allowed he says, because convictions, in this they in challenges the validity purposes. note that case of Instead, postconviction were of prior and pleas of §§ Hinkle's illegal the v a l i d i t y in that those Therefore, those f o r enhancement Hinkle's prior purposes convictions used of attacking f o r enhancement the would for r e l i e f from P.; method filed the proper mechanism f o r c h a l l e n g i n g be a timely those McMillian (Ala. C r i m . App. 2005); 1014 ( A l a . Crim. App. v. 905 v. S t a t e , Crum v . 33 petition i n the court challenged. State, Sturdivant 1993); filed convictions c o n v i c t i o n f o r the convictions being Crim. p o s t t r i a l motions not the proper the p r i o r convictions R. See f o r the his guilty n o t be u s e d prior stamp. The g i s t were two were r e n d e r e d i n v o l u n t a r y . could we the i n s t a n t Ala. and received convictions convictions case. Initially, prior he he to withdraw cases because h i s pleas prior State, So. of See R u l e 3 2 , 2d 862, 863 643 S o . 2 d 1 0 1 3 , 611 So. 2d 495, CR-09-0448 496 a ( A l a . C r i m . App. defendant validity at his 269-71 2d 400, So. 2d sentencing offender. i t is well settled hearing E.g., ( A l a . C r . App. 400-01 742, 7 69 cannot Regardless, in this the affix-tax-stamp convictions for substance. See Ala. Code this So. "that attack the case, 367 (Ala. the trial convictions, § even See had 13A-5-9(c), A l a . Code is on the Hinkle foregoing, i s not So. 723 the v. 1999). sentenced failure-to- prior of 1975; State App. properly distribution 2d 623 also three So. State, v. Crim. without Hinkle unlawful Thus, court 681 State, Burgess 1997 ) . HFOA b e c a u s e , the M c H a r r i s v. App. 366, State, as a controlled § the entitled felony 13A-12-211, claim. Based 1975. 2d James v. 1993)." (Ala. Crim. 747 under 1996); ( A l a . C r . App. Gagliardi, Hinkle Further, of a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n used to enhance h i s sentence a habitual felony 269, 1992). judgment of the to relief trial on court affirmed. AFFIRMED. W e l c h , P . J . , and Windom, K e l l u m , and B u r k e , J J . , c o n c u r . 34

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.