Samuel Lashaun Lee v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 02/04/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 Reporter o f Decisions, 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 ((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-09-1751 Samuel Lashaun Lee v. State Appeal WELCH, o f Alabama from Etowah C i r c u i t (CC-99-559.10) Judge. Samuel Lashaun Lee appeals summary d e n i a l o f h i s p e t i t i o n to Court § 15-22-54.1, from the circuit court's seeking resentencing pursuant A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . CR-09-1751 On July pursuant Lee to 2, § court and that he suspended the Lee November the t h a t he h a d incarcerated. On information a or for In convicted resentencing his of placed his probation does attached not to Lee petition, first-degree imprisonment. and record Lee 1975. years' that The petition been 15 stated revocation. reflecting to a Code Ala. sentence 2004. 10, filed had sentenced probation. for Lee 15-22-54.1, asserted robbery 2010, on The trial five was years' revoked d i s c l o s e the his petition on reason documents c o m p l e t e d v a r i o u s p r o g r a m s w h i l e he July 12, response summarily denied Lee's underlying c o n v i c t i o n was 2010, from without the petition requiring State, on the the further circuit basis for a violent offense. 1 was court that Lee's This appeal followed. On it appeal, Lee argues d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 b e c a u s e he the reasoning of Holt was that the ineligible circuit State, 960 erred for resentencing i s a v i o l e n t offender. v. court So. 2d Lee 726, under argues 734 when § that (Ala. A l t h o u g h the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d not use the S t a t e of A l a b a m a U n i f i e d J u d i c i a l S y s t e m F o r m CR-63B i n d e n y i n g L e e ' s p e t i t i o n for resentencing, t h a t form l i s t s p o s s i b l e grounds f o r d e n i a l of a p e t i t i o n and i n c l u d e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n had been f o r a v i o l e n t o f f e n s e . 1 2 CR-09-1751 Crim. App. petition 2006), should f i l e d pursuant a p p l y when a t r i a l t o § 15-22-54.1 court considers and t h a t a t r i a l should consider the t o t a l i t y of the circumstances whether reasons the p e t i t i o n e r stated is a below we announced i n H o l t governing Ala. The April Alabama the to cases For the principles o f § 13A-5-9.1, involving resentencing 1975. L e g i s l a t u r e amended § 15-22-54, effective 30, 2010, t o l i m i t i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n t h e p e n i t e n t i a r y f o r result offenders of relief to revocation whose probation technical violations certain inmates of probation 2010-753, A l a . A c t s a that court to determine offender. the implementation t o § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . Code eligible 54.1, determine Code 1 9 7 5 , do n o t a p p l y pursuant nonviolent a 2010. and revoked in a before case to serving been revoked provide time as the retroactive following for a technical violation. Act the No. I n t h a t same a c t , i t a d d e d § 1 5 - 2 2 ¬ A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e s sentence has i n which f o r r e t r o a c t i v e review the offender's the e f f e c t i v e date probation was o f t h e amendment t o § 1 5 - 2 2 ¬ 54: "(a) Any person convicted of a nonviolent offense now s e r v i n g a p r i s o n s e n t e n c e b a s e d on revocation of probation as a result of only technical violations shall be entitled to be 3 of CR-09-1751 r e s e n t e n c e d upon p e t i t i o n t o the s e n t e n c i n g court. S u c h p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e on a f o r m a n d f i l e d i n t h e manner p r e s c r i b e d by the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e o f Courts. P e t i t i o n s s h a l l be c o n s i d e r e d authorized motions f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of sentence, assigned a u n i q u e i d e n t i f i e r by the A d m i n i s t r a t i v e O f f i c e of C o u r t s , and s h a l l not r e q u i r e payment of a f i l i n g fee. "(b) The court shall have j u r i s d i c t i o n to resentence the o f f e n d e r i n accordance w i t h the terms of t h i s s e c t i o n , upon a showing of the f o l l o w i n g : "(1) completed months. The offender successfully the terms of p r o b a t i o n f o r s i x " ( 2 ) P r o b a t i o n was t h e r e a f t e r r e v o k e d and the offender was sentenced to the p e n i t e n t i a r y o n l y as a r e s u l t o f t e c h n i c a l v i o l a t i o n s of p r o b a t i o n . " ( 3 ) The o f f e n d e r h a s infractions while serving the p e n i t e n t i a r y . no d i s c i p l i n a r y the sentence i n "(4) The offender has no pending c h a r g e s o r c o n v i c t i o n s f o r a new offense." § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . C o d e 1975 In 1975, the absence of conferring jurisdiction to (Emphasis a statute like jurisdiction, resentence a a added). § 15-22-54.1, A l a . circuit defendant 30 court loses days after sentencing. " [ P ] u r s u a n t t o R u l e 24, A l a . R . C r i m . P., a d e f e n d a n t may request, and the trial c o u r t may order, a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f h i s s e n t e n c e o n l y w i t h i n 30 days 4 Code CR-09-1751 a f t e r s e n t e n c i n g . See E x p a r t e H i t t , 778 S o . 2 d 159 (Ala. 2000). Because the appellant filed his ' M o t i o n t o R e c o n s i d e r S e n t e n c e ' m o r e t h a n 30 d a y s a f t e r he was s e n t e n c e d , h i s r e q u e s t was n o t t i m e l y . Therefore, the circuit court did not have j u r i s d i c t i o n to modify the a p p e l l a n t ' s sentences i n cases CC-99-1275, CC-99-1276, CC-99-1277, and CC-99-2710. Furthermore, because i t d i d not have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e s e n t e n c e t h e a p p e l l a n t on t h o s e cases, the circuit court's r e v o c a t i o n of his p r o b a t i o n w i t h regard to those cases i s n u l l and void." C r u i t t v. S t a t e , The 899 893 Alabama So. 2d 968 So. 2d 1236, Supreme (Ala. Court 1238 ( A l a . C r i m . App. explained in Kirby v. 2003). State, 2004): "Only the L e g i s l a t u r e , w i t h i n constitutional l i m i t s , has the a u t h o r i t y t o a l t e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t s . H e n d e r s o n v . S t a t e , 616 S o . 2d 406, 407-10 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) . By p a s s i n g a general act of statewide application, the Legislature can change the r u l e s t h i s C o u r t has promulgated governing the administration of a l l courts. E x p a r t e K e n n e d y , 656 S o . 2 d 3 6 5 , 367 ( A l a . 1995)." 899 So. A 2d at circuit 972. court's power p r e s c r i b e d by t h e p a r a m e t e r s to changes the r u l e s promulgated of the courts, any judicial statute. on the p l a i n interpretation T h i s C o u r t has a defendant s e t f o r t h by the l e g i s l a t u r e it based resentence of to govern language ambiguous the is when administration of the s t a t u t e language in and the n o t y e t r e v i e w e d many c a s e s a p p l y i n g 5 CR-09-1751 this new s t a t u t e . December 17, 2 0 1 0 ] ___ 2010)(holding McQuieter's been App. that relies that determination, whether for a defendant offense." two 1975, specific whether group should Crim. made permits retroactive offender," § review i n limited convicted although § sentence 15-22-54.1(a), of a sentence cases of a circumstances, However, had been a and only "nonviolent a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e and l i m i t s application of defendants the underlying (Ala. have of the f o rr e t r o a c t i v e This presents statutes had of h i s probation). offender. of probation who t o modify sentence" 960 S o . 2 d 7 2 6 court f o r a "nonviolent revocation App. § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 . 1 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , when he Code 1 9 7 5 , p r o v i d e s following ( A l a . Crim. "straight on t h e t o t a l i t y A l a . Code consideration a v. S t a t e , circuit based [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 7 6 0 , had j u r i s d i c t i o n though he was a n o n v i o l e n t 13A-5-9.1, Ala. on H o l t the ___ the revocation 2006), i n t e r p r e t i n g argues 3d court even following v. S t a t e , So. circuit sentence imposed Lee See M c Q u i e t e r crime based of § 15-22-54.1 initially was a v i o l e n t to a and s o l e l y crime. on When i t e n a c t e d § 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 t h e l e g i s l a t u r e u n d o u b t e d l y was a w a r e o f the term, " n o n v i o l e n t convicted offender," 6 i t h a d u s e d when i t CR-09-1751 e n a c t e d § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 . 1 i n 2 0 0 1 , a n d i t d i d n o t u s e t h e same term again the i n 2010 when legislature limited i t enacted application d e f e n d a n t s who h a d b e e n This Court has distinction this noted "convicted previously between these of statute. this Instead, statute of a nonviolent the to those offense." s i g n i f i c a n c e of the terms: "Had t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o p r e c l u d e a n y i n m a t e c o n v i c t e d o f a ' v i o l e n t o f f e n s e ' as d e f i n e d i n § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 7 0 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] a n d / o r § 1 2 - 2 5 - 3 2 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] f r o m r e c e i v i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f § 13A-5-9.1, i t c o u l d have e a s i l y s a i d t h a t § 13A-5-9 would apply r e t r o a c t i v e l y only t o those offenders who h a d n o t b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a n o f f e n s e d e f i n e d b y statute as a 'violent offense.' Instead, the legislature c h o s e t o s t a t e t h a t § 13A-5-9 w o u l d apply r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o any ' n o n v i o l e n t convicted ^ - p - p ^ ^ ^ III offender.'" Holt v. S t a t e , The discussed instruct 960 S o . 2 d 7 2 6 , 7 3 6 - 3 7 legislature h a s now made i n Holt. "Principles this Court to ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) the d i s t i n c t i o n of statutory interpret the plain this Court construction language of a s t a t u t e t o mean e x a c t l y w h a t i t s a y s a n d t o e n g a g e i n j u d i c i a l construction ambiguous." only Ex p a r t e We m u s t , t h e n , i f the Pratt, language i n the 815 So. 2 d 5 3 2 , 535 statute (Ala. 2001). i n t e r p r e t t h e s t a t u t e as i t i s w r i t t e n . 7 i s CR-09-1751 We for to find Lee's no on whether the 15-22-54.1, application was for a the to trial a nonviolent offense but as d i s c u s s e d offense. does offender i s a nonviolent additional Thus, pursuant a to permit a The the offender the statute In limited the underlying clear not of the enacting statute's conviction language of the whether of b a s e d on failed based totality State. consideration offender, the consideration of factors. circuit § court 15-22-54.1 defendant was convicted considers any additional Ala. whose of e r r e d when i t on clearly defendants statute any court i n H o l t v. legislature nonviolent language was he those not plain the underlying c i r c u m s t a n c e s and § i n the argument t h a t consider solely support Code 1975, confers considering must of a first petition determine "nonviolent parameters. whether offense" Then, § filed before the i t 15-22-54.1(b), court to r e s e n t e n c e a d e f e n d a n t a f t e r 30 d a y s f r o m t h e p r o n o u n c e m e n t of sentence i n the out i n the jurisdiction a underlying s t a t u t e are case only upon a c i r c u i t i f a l l four elements satisfied. S e c t i o n 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . Code 1975, define which offenses set are considered 8 does not specifically nonviolent offenses. CR-09-1751 However, the defining legislature the term sentencing. provides deemed The the has "violent Alabama most recent robbery is § Code 1975. Thus, because Lee violent offenses. had be pursuant c i r c u i t c o u r t had i t s order Reform in the to § Act of Ala. list of he s t a t u t e as was offenses denying r e l i e f operated as Ala. offense eligible i t is written 1 5 - 2 2 - 5 4 . 1 , A l a . Code no j u r i s d i c t i o n 2003 1975. a.28, not of offenses Code of 12-25-32(13) a v i o l e n t offense, to and context the b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f an under the e x p l i c i t terms of the The in designation § -- resentenced specifically 12-25-32(13), included as d e f i n e d as statute offense" statutory designated statutorily a Sentencing violent offenses. First-degree enacted 1975. to resentence Lee, a d i s m i s s a l of Lee's petition. Accordingly, we affirm the circuit AFFIRMED. Windom and Kellum, J J . , concur. 9 -¬ court's judgment.

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.