Cornelius Antoine Billingsley v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/2012 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, 2012-2013 CR-10-0540 C o r n e l i u s Antoine Billingsley v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from S t . C l a i r C i r c u i t (CC-10-36) Court PER CURIAM. The a p p e l l a n t , C o r n e l i u s A n t o i n e B i l l i n g s l e y , a p p e a l s h i s guilty-plea conviction for failure to register as a s e x CR-10-0540 offender, court s e e § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code sentenced B i l l i n g s l e y suspended that probation. Billingsley sentence and Additionally, to pay a s s e s s m e n t , an a t t o r n e y On to five January a $50 him circuit circuit on two court years' ordered crime-victims-compensation f e e , and c o u r t costs. 28, 2010, t h e S t . C l a i r indicted Billingsley The 1 y e a r s ' imprisonment but placed the 1975. County Grand Jury as f o l l o w s : " C o r n e l i u s A n t o i n e B i l l i n g s l e y , whose name t o t h e G r a n d J u r y i s o t h e r w i s e unknown, h a v i n g b e e n c o n v i c t e d of the crime of Carnal Knowledge, i n the [ U n i t e d S t a t e s ] M i l i t a r y Court of F i r s t Region F o r t B e l v o i r , and h a v i n g been r e l e a s e d from l e g a l c u s t o d y d i d f a i l o r r e f u s e t o f i r s t r e g i s t e r as r e q u i r e d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f [ § ] 13A-11-200 o f t h e Code o f A l a b a m a , 1975, as l a s t amended, a g a i n s t t h e p e a c e a n d d i g n i t y of t h e S t a t e o f Alabama." [ 2 ] S e c t i o n 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, was r e p e a l e d on J u l y 2 0 1 1 , b y A c t No. 2011-640, § 49, A l a . A c t s 2 0 1 1 . 1 1, 2 T h e c r i m e o f " c a r n a l k n o w l e d g e " i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : "Any p e r s o n s u b j e c t t o t h i s c h a p t e r who, u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s n o t a m o u n t i n g t o r a p e , commits an a c t o f s e x u a l i n t e r c o u r s e w i t h a p e r s o n ( 1 ) who i s n o t t h a t p e r s o n ' s s p o u s e ; a n d ( 2 ) who h a s n o t a t t a i n e d t h e age o f s i x t e e n y e a r s ; i s g u i l t y of carnal k n o w l e d g e a n d s h a l l be p u n i s h e d as a c o u r t - m a r t i a l may d i r e c t . " 10 U.S.C. § 920 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , amended b y 10 U.S.C. § 920 2 (2007). CR-10-0540 (C. 28.) "motion Thereafter, to dismiss Billingsley indictment" f i l e d what he and an s t y l e d as a motion to "amended d i s m i s s i n d i c t m e n t , " i n w h i c h he a r g u e d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t lacked subject-matter legislature Military did intend to because, include he said, [Uniform Code "the of J u s t i c e ] c o n v i c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o n t r o l o f § 13A-11- 200[, Ala. court denied guilty, not jurisdiction court Code 1 9 7 5 ] . " On Billingsley's December motions 16, and 2010, the circuit Billingsley pleaded r e s e r v i n g f o r appeal the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n h i s motions. D u r i n g the g u i l t y - p l e a proceeding following factual basis the S t a t e p r o f f e r e d the for Billingsley's guilty plea: " [ B i l l i n g s l e y ] i s c o n v i c t e d o f a c r i m i n a l sex o f f e n s e and l i v e d i n J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y and moved t o the Southern D i v i s i o n of St. C l a i r County w i t h o u t g i v i n g n o t i c e and l i s t e d a T r a i l s End a d d r e s s i n S t . C l a i r County without g i v i n g n o t i c e to the s h e r i f f . That's a l l . " (R. 6.) On appeal, B i l l i n g s l e y argues t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t n o t have " j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n v i c t [ h i m ] of f a i l u r e to r e g i s t e r as a s e x o f f e n d e r u n d e r [ § ] the offense conviction 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] when [ t h a t ] made t h e b a s i s o f t h e is (Billingsley's a conviction brief, did p. in 6.) 3 a ... failure to r e g i s t e r military court." CR-10-0540 The State, unpublished 1971, relying memorandum on this Court's in Billingsley O c t . 22, 2010) 92 So. 3d 814 (table), contends 3 that affirmance by v. S t a t e (No. CR-08- ( A l a . Crim. App. 2010) Billingsley's argument i s not preserved f o r review because, i t says, " [ a ] l t h o u g h B i l l i n g s l e y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e i n a p r e t r i a l motion and r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t to appeal challenge i t s denial, the issue to the sufficiency i s nothing more than of the evidence, which i s not p r o p e r i n a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s an i n d i c t m e n t . " p. 4.) I n our p r e v i o u s unpublished a (State's b r i e f , memorandum, this Court r e l i e d on t h e h o l d i n g i n D o s e c k v. S t a t e , 8 So. 3d 1024 ( A l a . B i l l i n g s l e y v. S t a t e was an a p p e a l f r o m an u n r e l a t e d conviction i n v o l v i n g a s i m i l a r issue. Although the State's brief relies on t h i s Court's memorandum affirmance i n B i l l i n g s l e y ' s p r e v i o u s u n r e l a t e d c a s e , we r e c o g n i z e t h a t R u l e 5 4 ( d ) , A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t 3 " o r d e r s o f a f f i r m a n c e o r a memorandum i s s u e d b y t h e C o u r t o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s b y w h i c h a j u d g m e n t ... i s affirmed without an o p i n i o n ... s h a l l have no precedential value and s h a l l n o t be c i t e d i n a r g u m e n t s o r b r i e f s a n d s h a l l n o t be u s e d b y any court i n t h i s s t a t e , except f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n of the d o c t r i n e of law of t h e case, r e s j u d i c a t a , c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , double jeopardy, or p r o c e d u r a l b a r . " Thus, we r e v i e w t h i s c a s e w i t h o u t r e g a r d p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n i n B i l l i n g s l e y v. S t a t e . 4 to this Court's CR-10-0540 C r i m . App. 2008). This h o w e v e r , i n Ankrom v. So. 3d ___ Court subsequently overruled State, [Ms. ( A l a . C r i m . App. CR-09-1148, Aug. 2011), Doseck, 26, holding: " [ I ] n D o s e c k v. S t a t e , 8 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 0 8 ) , t h i s C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o r e v i e w t h e m e r i t s of a s i m i l a r i s s u e because the i s s u e had been i m p r o p e r l y r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t by way o f a motion to dismiss. This Court held that Rule 13.5(c)(1), A l a . R. C r i m . P., does n o t permit dismissal of an indictment based on the insufficiency o f t h e e v i d e n c e and t h a t no other 'Rule o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e ... p r o v i d e s a mechanism f o r a p r e t r i a l c h a l l e n g e to the s u f f i c i e n c y of the e v i d e n c e . ' D o s e c k , 8 So. 3d a t 1025. "In the present case, Ankrom's attorney r e f e r e n c e d t h e i n d i c t m e n t when r e s e r v i n g t h e i s s u e f o r r e v i e w and s t y l e d t h e p l e a d i n g as a ' M o t i o n t o Dismiss Indictment.' However, the motion was o b v i o u s l y m i s l a b e l e d , because i t d i d not challenge the v a l i d i t y of the i n d i c t m e n t . R a t h e r , Ankrom's m o t i o n and argument f o r t h r i g h t l y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r h e r c o n d u c t , as a m a t t e r o f l a w , c o n s t i t u t e d a v i o l a t i o n o f § 26-15-3.2, A l a . Code 1975, the o f f e n s e c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t was clearly on notice of this legal issue, i n t e r p r e t e d t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e t o encompass Ankrom's c o n d u c t , and a c c e p t e d Ankrom's r e s e r v a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w . The S t a t e d i d n o t o b j e c t t o the r e s e r v a t i o n of t h i s i s s u e . "Procedurally, D o s e c k a p p e a r s t o be nearly i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e and, i f followed, w o u l d r e q u i r e t h i s C o u r t t o h o l d t h a t Ankrom's c l a i m is not properly before this Court f o r review. However, upon r e e x a m i n i n g D o s e c k , we now believe that this decision conflicts with established p r e c e d e n t f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , s u c h as Ex 5 2011] CR-10-0540 parte parte Deramus, 882 So. 2d 875 ( A l a . 2002) . I n Deramus, t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d : Ex " ' I n d e e d , t h e mere m i s l a b e l i n g o f a motion i s not f a t a l . K i n g Mines R e s o r t , I n c . v. M a l a c h i M i n i n g & M i n e r a l s , I n c . , 518 So. 2d 714, 718 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) . T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d t h a t i t i s " c o m m i t t e d t o t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i t w i l l t r e a t a m o t i o n (or o t h e r p l e a d i n g ) and i t s a s s i g n e d g r o u n d s a c c o r d i n g to i t s substance." King Mines Resort, 518 So. 2d at 718; see also L o c k h a r t v. P h e n i x C i t y I n v . Co., 488 So. 2d 1353 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) , and S e x t o n v. P r i s o c k , 495 So. 2d 581 ( A l a . 1986). F u r t h e r , the C o u r t has h e l d t h a t " [ t ] h e s u b s t a n c e o f a m o t i o n and n o t i t s s t y l e d e t e r m i n e s what k i n d o f m o t i o n i t i s . " E v a n s v. W a d d e l l , 689 So. 2d 23, 26 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . ' "[W]e now h o l d t h a t , i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u c h as t h o s e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s c a s e and i n D o s e c k - - w h e r e a p u r e q u e s t i o n o f l a w as t o w h e t h e r an a c c u s e d ' s a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e he o r she i s charged w i t h v i o l a t i n g i s p r o p e r l y p r e s e n t e d to the trial c o u r t , r u l e d on by t h e t r i a l court, and p r o p e r l y r e s e r v e d f o r appeal d u r i n g the g u i l t y - p l e a c o l l o q u y - - t h e a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d n o t be p e n a l i z e d f o r r a i s i n g t h a t q u e s t i o n o f l a w i n an i m p r o p e r l y s t y l e d pleading, s u c h as i n a motion to dismiss the indictment. To hold otherwise would result in l e g a l l y m e r i t l e s s cases being sent to t r i a l and would waste precious judicial resources. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t i s important to note t h a t the S t a t e and Ankrom p r e s e n t e d t h i s l e g a l i s s u e f u l l y t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . F u r t h e r , a l l p a r t i e s were c l e a r l y aware o f t h e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o , and r u l e d upon, by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . I t w o u l d be p r o c e d u r a l f o l l y f o r o u r C o u r t t o now r e f u s e t o c o n s i d e r t h e m e r i t s o f t h i s i s s u e . To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Doseck h e l d o t h e r w i s e , i t i s hereby overruled. M o r e o v e r , Ankrom r a i s e d t h i s s p e c i f i c i s s u e o r a l l y 6 CR-10-0540 d u r i n g the g u i l t y - p l e a reserved i t f o r review. Ankrom, So. The 3d a t record (footnote here, Billingsley filed indictment" and as what an proceeding in he and omitted). Ankrom, styled thereafter as "amended m o t i o n a to establishes "motion dismiss the they State's Billingsley's Ala. Code reserved void to a present evidence question pure Furthermore, r i g h t to appeal f o r vagueness." holding preserved in Ankrom, this (C. argument Billingsley, as c o u r t was without register as 1975.]" Specifically, a sex 5.) of for law as to Billingsley specifically i s s u e s of j u r i s d i c t i o n has properly review. this and Court's reserved Accordingly, and we now appeal. s t a t e d above, contends t h a t the offender whether o f § 13A-11-200, " j u r i s d i c t i o n t o c o n v i c t [him] under sufficiency conviction; rather, Thus, b a s e d on c l a i m on under [§] circuit of f a i l u r e to 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 [ , A l a . Code B i l l i n g s l e y contends t h a t a c o n v i c t i o n in a United States m i l i t a r y register "the Billingsley address B i l l i n g s l e y ' s to his actions constitute a violation 1975. the support dismiss indictment," w h i c h do n o t , as t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s , c h a l l e n g e t h e of to that [§] c o u r t does n o t " t r i g g e r [ ] any 13A-11-200, 7 Ala. Code duty 1975." CR-10-0540 (Billingsley's hand, brief, contends that pp. 3-4.). military The courts State, are on the other federal courts b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , m i l i t a r y c o u r t s a r e " c r e a t e d by f e d e r a l l a w under A r t i c l e I of the Uniform Code of followed by proceedings the -- United Military United is States Justice States federal law C o n s t i t u t i o n " and -- military deriving the "the governing courts in criminal directly U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " ( S t a t e ' s b r i e f , pp. code from 7-8.) the Thus, t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s a person c o n v i c t e d of a q u a l i f y i n g offense in a U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y c o u r t to r e g i s t e r w i t h the s h e r i f f of the county where he or she maintains So. 2d 163 his or her legal residence. I n S o l e s v. S t a t e , 820 ( A l a . C r i m . App. t h i s Court s t a t e d : "'The first rule of statutory c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t h a t the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g i v e n e f f e c t . Ex p a r t e M c C a l l , 596 So. 2d 4 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; V o l k s w a g e n o f A m e r i c a , I n c . v. D i l l a r d , 57 9 So. 2d 1301 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . However, when p o s s i b l e , the i n t e n t of the legislature s h o u l d be g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f . D i l l a r d , s u p r a . Thus, where the language of the s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , the c o u r t must g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e c l e a r m e a n i n g o f t h a t l a n g u a g e . Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v i c e 8 2001), CR-10-0540 S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; IMED C o r p . v . Systems Eng'g A s s o c i a t e s C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . ' " B e a v e r s v. C o u n t y o f W a l k e r , 645 So. 2d 1 3 6 5 , 1376-77 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . See a l s o T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v. D e p u t y S h e r i f f s ' Ass'n of Tuscaloosa C o u n t y , 589 So. 2d 687, 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ( ' W o r d s u s e d i n [a] s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s c l e a r and unambiguous, t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . ' ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) ) . " 820 So. 2d a t 164-65. instruct this Court "Principles of statutory construction to i n t e r p r e t the p l a i n language of a s t a t u t e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s a n d t o engage i n j u d i c i a l construction ambiguous." only i f the Ex p a r t e Pratt, "[O]nly i f there stated will we language the statute is 815 So. 2d 532, 535 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . i s no r a t i o n a l look in beyond way t o i n t e r p r e t t h e words those words to determine l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . " D e K a l b C o u n t y LP Gas Co. v. S u b u r b a n Gas, Inc., 729 So. 2d 270, 276 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . S e c t i o n 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n part: "(b) I f any p e r s o n , e x c e p t a d e l i n q u e n t c h i l d , as d e f i n e d i n S e c t i o n 12-15-1, r e s i d i n g i n A l a b a m a , has h e r e t o f o r e b e e n c o n v i c t e d , o r s h a l l be c o n v i c t e d i n any s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t i n A l a b a m a , o r f e d e r a l c o u r t , o r so c o n v i c t e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n 9 CR-10-0540 any court having jurisdiction similar t o the jurisdiction o f s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l courts i n Alabama f o r any of the offenses hereinafter enumerated, s u c h p e r s o n s h a l l , upon h i s o r h e r release from legal custody, r e g i s t e r with the s h e r i f f of the county of h i s or her l e g a l residence w i t h i n s e v e n days f o l l o w i n g s u c h r e l e a s e o r w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 7, 1967, i n c a s e s u c h p e r s o n was r e l e a s e d p r i o r t o s u c h d a t e . F o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s a r t i c l e , a c o n v i c t i o n includes a plea of nolo c o n t e n d e r e , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r a d j u d i c a t i o n was withheld. The o f f e n s e s above r e f e r r e d to are g e n e r a l l y any a c t o f s e x u a l p e r v e r s i o n i n v o l v i n g a member o f t h e same o r t h e o p p o s i t e s e x , o r any s e x u a l a b u s e o f any member o f t h e same o r t h e o p p o s i t e s e x o r any a t t e m p t t o commit any o f t h e s e a c t s , and w i t h o u t l i m i t i n g t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e above s t a t e m e n t s h a l l i n c l u d e s p e c i f i c a l l y : Rape, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-61 a n d 13A-6-62; sodomy, as p r o s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n s 13A-6-63 a n d 13A-6-64; sexual misconduct, as p r o s c r i b e d by S e c t i o n 13A-6-65; i n d e c e n t e x p o s u r e , as p r o s c r i b e d by S e c t i o n 13A-6-68; p r o m o t i n g p r o s t i t u t i o n i n t h e f i r s t o r s e c o n d d e g r e e , as p r o s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n s 13A-12-111 a n d 13A-12-112; o b s c e n i t y , as p r o s c r i b e d by S e c t i o n 13A-12-131; i n c e s t , as p r o s c r i b e d b y S e c t i o n 13A-13-3; o r t h e a t t e m p t t o commit any o f t h e above o f f e n s e s . " A plain reading of § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, establishes that the statute c o n s i s t s of three p a r t s . First, the s t a t u t e c o n t a i n s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p o r t i o n , which s e t s out the j u r i s d i c t i o n s i n which c o n v i c t i o n s f o r q u a l i f y i n g o f f e n s e s r e q u i r e r e g i s t r a t i o n as f o l l o w s : " I f any p e r s o n ... r e s i d i n g i n A l a b a m a , h a s h e r e t o f o r e b e e n c o n v i c t e d , o r s h a l l be c o n v i c t e d i n any s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t i n A l a b a m a , o r f e d e r a l 10 CR-10-0540 c o u r t , o r so c o n v i c t e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n any c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m i l a r to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n A l a b a m a " § 13A-11-200(b), the t i m e frame A l a . Code 1975. i n w h i c h an o f f e n d e r § 13A-11-200(b), his or her sheriff seven days A l a . Code 1975 release of the date from county legal "). i s required to ("[s]uch person custody, of h i s or her f o l l o w i n g such September 7, 1967, such Second, t h e s t a t u t e e x p l a i n s release legal Finally, " c o n v i c t i o n " and " o f f e n s e s " the statute shall, upon register with residence or w i t h i n i n c a s e s u c h p e r s o n was register. 30 days within after released prior defines the as f o l l o w s : "For purposes of t h i s a r t i c l e , a c o n v i c t i o n i n c l u d e s a p l e a of nolo contendere, r e g a r d l e s s of whether adjudication was withheld. The offenses above referred to are generally any a c t of sexual p e r v e r s i o n i n v o l v i n g a member o f t h e same o r t h e o p p o s i t e s e x , o r any s e x u a l abuse o f any member o f t h e same o r t h e o p p o s i t e s e x o r any a t t e m p t t o commit any o f t h e s e a c t s , and w i t h o u t l i m i t i n g t h e g e n e r a l i t y o f t h e above s t a t e m e n t s h a l l include specifically: Rape, as proscribed by Sections 13A-6-61 and 13A-6-62; sodomy, as p r o s c r i b e d by S e c t i o n s 13A-6-63 and 13A-6-64; s e x u a l m i s c o n d u c t , as proscribed by Section 13A-6-65; indecent exposure, as proscribed by Section 13A-6-68; promoting prostitution i n the first or second d e g r e e , as p r o s c r i b e d by S e c t i o n s 13A-12-111 and 13A-12-112; o b s c e n i t y , as p r o s c r i b e d by Section 13A-12-131; incest, as proscribed by Section 13A-13-3; o r t h e a t t e m p t t o commit any o f t h e above offenses." 11 the to terms CR-10-0540 § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. On appeal, Billingsley challenges the jurisdictional p o r t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e o n l y ; namely, whether m i l i t a r y are included i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l making i t a p p l i c a b l e t o those portion courts of the statute convicted i n "federal court." § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. Merriam-Webster's 2003) d e f i n e s Collegiate Dictionary "federal court" as "a c o u r t 459 (11th ed. e s t a b l i s h e d by a f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t " o r "one e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s o f t h e U.S." established M i l i t a r y courts are l e g i s l a t i v e courts, u n d e r A r t . I , § 8, C l . 14 o f t h e U n i t e d States C o n s t i t u t i o n , w h i c h g r a n t s C o n g r e s s t h e power " [ t ] o make R u l e s for t h e Government and R e g u l a t i o n of the land and naval Forces." See, e . g . , Gosa v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665, 686 (1973) (stating t h a t "a m i l i t a r y court with j u r i s d i c t i o n and defined by A r t i c l e t r i b u n a l i s an A r t i c l e I l e g i s l a t i v e i n d e p e n d e n t o f j u d i c i a l power III"). Pursuant created to i t sA r t i c l e I a u t h o r i t y , s e e S o l o r i o v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 483 U.S. 435, 438-39 ( 1 9 8 7 ) , C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d t h e U n i f o r m Code o f M i l i t a r y 10 U.S.C. §§ 801 t o 950, w h i c h system of m i l i t a r y e s t a b l i s h e d "an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r t s and review p r o c e d u r e s . " 12 Justice, Schlesinger CR-10-0540 v. C o u n c i l m a n , courts are United and 420 U.S. 738, 758 f e d e r a l l y created (1975). T h e r e f o r e , courts established States C o n s t i t u t i o n . Accordingly, In a military Esters v. under the p l a i n , commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g o f t h e t e r m includes military the ordinary, "federal court" court. State, 480 So. 2d 615 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1 9 8 5 ) , we h e l d t h a t a p r i o r c o u r t - m a r t i a l c o n v i c t i o n c o u l d be used t o enhance a s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o the p r o v i s i o n s o f the A l a b a m a 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 , see § 13A-5-9, A l a . Code 1975, so long as that conviction otherwise q u a l i f i e d f e l o n y p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( i v ) , A l a . R. C r i m . P. (now R u l e 2 6 . 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( i v ) , A l a . R. this Court recognized that "[t]he Crim. P . ) . I n so Uniform Code o f as (Temp.) holding, Military J u s t i c e , u n d e r w h i c h a p p e l l a n t was p r e v i o u s l y c o n v i c t e d , law of federal the United States and statutes. People v. has the Benjamin, force and [7 A.E.2d a is a effect of 410, 184 N.Y.S.2d 1 (195 9 ) ] ; 10 U.S.C.A. § 801, e t s e q . ; 6 C.J.S. Armed Services As the § 155 (1975)." E s t e r s , i n Esters, a conviction U n i f o r m Code o f M i l i t a r y States -- carries 480 So. for violating J u s t i c e -- consequences 13 2d a t 617. provisions a law of the under Alabama law. of United In the CR-10-0540 i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e u s e o f t h e t e r m " f e d e r a l c o u r t " i n § 13A-11200(b), Ala. Code 1975, encompasses the military court t r i b u n a l s c r e a t e d by Congress. Because c o n v i c t i o n s i n " f e d e r a l court" military failing as used courts, in § 13A-11-200(b) Billingsley's guilty-plea t o r e g i s t e r as a s e x o f f e n d e r B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , is include convictions conviction i s due t o be in for affirmed. t h e judgment o f t h e c i r c u i t court affirmed. AFFIRMED. Kellum, J . , concurs. in the opinion. result. Welch, Windom, P . J . , and B u r k e , J . , c o n c u r J . , concurs Joiner, J . , dissents, with 14 i n the opinion. result, with CR-10-0540 WELCH, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g The majority affirms guilty-plea conviction offender, violation a i n the concur o n l y i n the Cornelius for of § failure 2011) dissenting in part), and Nov. 3d concurring here, like So. in the the register 2011] sex I opinion for State, I believe in Ankrom 3d i n the ( A l a . C r i m . App. indictments a 1975. Code So. concurring i n H i c k s v. result). as s p e c i a l w r i t i n g s i n Ankrom v. (Welch, P . J . , 4, 2011] to Billingsley's r e s u l t reached i n the Court's [Ms. CR-09-1148, A u g u s t 26, C r i m . App. Antoine 13A-11-200, A l a . t h e same r e a s o n s I s t a t e d i n my State, result. that and [Ms. (Ala. result CR-09-0642, 2011)(Welch, J . , the indictment Hicks, properly c h a r g e d an o f f e n s e w i t h i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y denied B i l l i n g s l e y ' s motions seeking otherwise would determination Continuing d i s m i s s a l of the as have to been the to adhere to t h i s indictment, an view, of pretrial pretrial the evidence. I also disagree with Ankrom c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n t o o v e r r u l e D o s e c k v. S t a t e , 8 So. 1024 i n my ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008), f o r the reasons f u l l y s p e c i a l w r i t i n g i n Ankrom, i n c l u d i n g t h a t 15 and because to r u l e impermissible sufficiency and the 3d explained "allowing a CR-10-0540 trial c o u r t to conduct substantive a pretrial i s s u e p r e s e n t e d here review of the -- w h e t h e r the a c t i o n s c o n s t i t u t e a v i o l a t i o n of the s t a t u t e " Alabama R u l e s of C r i m i n a l Procedure and underlying defendant's " m o d i f i e d the engrafted into the r u l e s a f o r m o f summary judgment as f o u n d i n t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s of C i v i l Procedure. State, So. See R u l e 56, A l a . R. C i v . P." 3d at (Welch, P.J., Ankrom v. concurring i n the r e s u l t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t ) . Moreover, here, as i n Ankrom and pleaded g u i l t y a f t e r the c i r c u i t d i s m i s s t h e i n d i c t m e n t , b u t now i n Hicks, c o u r t denied h i s motions to seeks t o c h a l l e n g e the S t a t e ' s evidence t h a t supported the c o n v i c t i o n . pleaded g u i l t y , Billingsley Because Billingsley an a p p e l l a t e c h a l l e n g e t o t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e w o u l d be r e s o l v e d a d v e r s e l y t o him. L a w r e n c e v. S t a t e , 953 So. 2d 431, 433 ("'A plea s e r v e s as charged.'" an ( A l a . C r i m . App. admission t o a l l elements ( q u o t i n g M i t c h e l l v. ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2006) State, 495 guilty of the o f f e n s e So. 2d 738, 739 1986))). T h e r e f o r e , I b e l i e v e t h a t B i l l i n g s l e y ' s c o n v i c t i o n i s due t o be affirmed. the r e s u l t because However, i n t h i s case the a n a l y s i s r e l i e s 16 I can c o n c u r o n l y i n on Ankrom. I believe CR-10-0540 that the motions to dismiss majority's are circuit court's the indictment determination convictions proper denial rendered that convictions i n "federal court" of Billingsley's unnecessary the in military courts as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 1 3 A - 1 1 - 2 0 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975. For the foregoing reasons, result. 17 I respectfully concur i n the CR-10-0540 JOINER, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . A l t h o u g h I agree w i t h the main o p i n i o n t o the e x t e n t it addresses the merits [Ms. CR-09-1148, Aug. App. 2011), conclusion of 26, this case, 2011] So. I respectfully dissent t h a t the term offender under offense [that] conviction is [§] a the the [him] basis Ala. of in (Billingsley's brief, contends military-court that main as Crim. opinion's i t i s used i n § court court. d i d not have o f f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r as a conviction p. (Ala. the circuit 13A-11-200[, made from State, p l a i n l y includes a m i l i t a r y argues t h a t " j u r i s d i c t i o n to convict Ankrom v. 3d "federal court" 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, Billingsley see that 6.) The Code the a 1975,] failure to register court." on convictions the other are hand, encompassed w i t h i n t h e t e r m " f e d e r a l c o u r t " as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n § 11-200, A l a . frames the Code i s s u e as 1975. Thus, the main opinion 3d a t . follows: This i s an 18 i s s u e of f i r s t 13A- correctly " [ T ] h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r § 13A-11200, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f a q u a l i f y i n g offense i n a United States m i l i t a r y c o u r t to r e g i s t e r w i t h the s h e r i f f of the county where he or she maintains his or her legal residence." So. the military ... State, when sex impression. CR-10-0540 As a threshold matter, I note that c o n s t r u c t i o n o f c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s we have with regard t o the held: "'"The touchstone of legislative c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and e f f e c t u a t e t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e . " Horn v. C i t i z e n s Hosp., 425 So. 2d 1065, 1070 ( A l a . 1982) ( e m p h a s i s added). This Court gives e f f e c t t o the i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e as e x p r e s s e d i n t h e p l a i n , unambiguous language of the statute. Jefferson County Comm'n v. E d w a r d s , 32 So. 3d 572, 586 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . ' "Ex p a r t e C a t l i n , 72 So. 3d 606, 607-08 (Cobb, C . J . , c o n c u r r i n g s p e c i a l l y ) . ( A l a . 2011) "'It i s a well established principle of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t "[w]here the meaning of t h e p l a i n language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s c l e a r , i t must be construed a c c o r d i n g t o i t s p l a i n l a n g u a g e . " Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501, 504 ( A l a . 1993). " P r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i n s t r u c t t h i s Court to i n t e r p r e t the p l a i n language of a s t a t u t e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s and t o engage i n j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o n l y i f t h e l a n g u a g e i n t h e s t a t u t e i s a m b i g u o u s . " Ex p a r t e P r a t t , 815 So. 2d 532, 535 ( A l a . 2001) . "'"'"[C]riminal statutes must be s t r i c t l y c o n s t r u e d , to avoid ensnaring behavior that i s not c l e a r l y p r o s c r i b e d . " ' United S t a t e s v. B r i d g e s , 493 F.2d 918, 922 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 4 ) . "'"'In United States M. RR Co., 380 U.S. 19 v. B o s t o n & 157, 85 S. CR-10-0540 C t . 868, 870, 13 L. Ed. 2d 728 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , t h e Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d : "'"'"A criminal statute is to be construed s t r i c t l y , not loosely. Such a r e t h e teachings of our cases from U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 5 L. Ed. 37 [ ( 1 8 2 0 ) ] , down t o t h i s day. Chief Justice Marshall said i n that case: "'"'"'The r ule t ha t penal laws are t o b e c o n s t r u e d strictly, i s , perhaps, not much l e s s o l d t h a n construction itself. Iti s f o u n d e d on t h e tenderness of the law f o r the r i g h t s of individuals; and on the p l a i n p r i n c i p l e that the power o f punishment i s vested i n the l e g i sla t i ve, not i n the j u d i c i a l 20 CR-10-0540 department.' I d . , p. 95. "'"'"The f a c t t h a t a particular activity may be w i t h i n t h e same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring i t w i t h i n the ambit of the criminal prohibition. United States v. W e i t z e l , 246 U.S. 533, 38 S. C t . 3 8 1 , 62 L. Ed. 872 [ ( 1 9 1 8 ) ] . " " ' " ' M o r e o v e r , "one ' i s n o t t o be s u b j e c t e d to a penalty u n l e s s t h e words o f t h e s t a t u t e p l a i n l y impose i t [ . ] ' K e p p e l v. Tiffin Savings Bank, 197 U.S. 356, 3 6 2 , 25 S. C t . 443, 49 L. Ed. 790 [ ( 1 9 0 5 ) ] . '[W]hen c h o i c e has t o be made between two r e a d i n g s o f what c o n d u c t C o n g r e s s has made a crime, i t is a p p r o p r i a t e , b e f o r e we c h o o s e t h e harsher a l t e r n a t i v e , t o require t h a t C o n g r e s s s h o u l d have s p o k e n i n language t h a t i s c l e a r and definite.' United States v. U n i v e r s a l C.I.T. C r e d i t C o r p . , 344 U.S. 218, 221-222, 73 S. C t . 227, 229-230, 97 L. E d . 260 [ (1952)]." United States v. Campos-Serrano, 404 U.S. 2 9 3 , 297, 92 S. C t . 4 7 1 , 474, 30 L. Ed. 2d 457 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . ' '""Bridges, 493 F.2d a t 923."' 21 CR-10-0540 " C r a w f o r d v. S t a t e , So. 3d , J . D . I . v. Thus, State, i n other 77 [Ms. CR-09-1227, A p r i l 29, ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 1 1 ) . " So. words, 3d 610, 616 ( A l a . C r i m . App. i t i s important construe criminal statutes construe criminal statutes actions the legislature too that broadly; narrowly did not 2011] to this Court instead, avoid 2011). not we must criminalizing specifically intend to criminalize. According determine 1975, to our standard whether the language is plain To or of of review, § we must 13A-11-200, Ala. first Code ambiguous. determine whether a s t a t u t e i s p l a i n , " ' t h i s C o u r t l o o k s t o t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f t h e words as w r i t t e n by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . As we have s a i d : "'"'Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be given t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , ordinary, and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n language i s u s e d a c o u r t i s bound t o interpret t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f the language of the s t a t u t e i s u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and the c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . ' " ' " M u n n e r l y n v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . , 2006) ( q u o t i n g D e K a l b C o u n t y LP Gas 729 So. 2d 270, 275-77 (Ala. 22 946 Co. 1998) So. 2d 436, 438 (Ala. v. S u b u r b a n Gas, Inc., (internal citations CR-10-0540 omitted)). "'Therefore, only i f there i n t e r p r e t t h e words as s t a t e d w i l l we to determine legislative however, t o a v o i d i s no the to l o o k b e y o n d t h o s e words i n t e n t . ' " Id. f i n d i n g , as r a t i o n a l way We must be main o p i n i o n careful, does, t h a t a c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i s p l a i n m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e words u s e d i n t h e statute can M o n i a , 317 words o f merely be U.S. e a s i l y defined. 424, a statute 431 are a pernicious See, (1943) ("The e.g., United States v. notion t h a t because the p l a i n , i t s meaning i s a l s o p l a i n , i s o v e r - s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . " (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)). R e g a r d i n g s t a t u t o r y a m b i g u i t y , on the o t h e r hand, i t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t " [ s ] t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e i s ambiguous i f i t i s susceptible Atlantic F.2d t o more t h a n one States 1128, unambiguous Legal 1138 interpretation')." I.R.S., 506 F.3d Cir. 'capable v. 1990) of only interpretation. See Tyson Foods, I n c . , 8 97 (statutory a single M e d i c a l T r a n s p . Mgmt. C o r p . v. 1364, e x i s t s more t h a n one a s t a t u t e , the Found., I n c . (11th because reasonable 1368 (11th C i r . 2007). r a t i o n a l way reasonable Comm'r o f Thus, i f t h e r e t o i n t e r p r e t the meaning of s t a t u t e i s ambiguous. 23 language CR-10-0540 A d d i t i o n a l l y , i f a c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e i s ambiguous t h e r u l e of lenity a p p l i e s , which statute[s] parte 884 C a s t i l l o v. U n i t e d So. 2d 889, u s i n g Merriam-Webster's court" government; 892 S t a t e s , 530 U.S. the main o p i n i o n "federal that "ambiguous c r i m i n a l ... be c o n s t r u e d i n f a v o r o f t h e a c c u s e d . " ' " See Ex Bertram, Here, "requires as esp: one defines ( A l a . 2003) 120 (2000)). the term " f e d e r a l C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y , which "a court established e s t a b l i s h e d under Merriam-Webster's (11th ed. 2003). B a s e d on t h a t d e f i n i t i o n , "the p l a i n , ordinary, by a court" defines federal t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n and l a w s o f t h e U.S." concludes that (quoting C o l l e g i a t e D i c t i o n a r y 459 the main opinion and commonly u n d e r s t o o d meaning of the term ' f e d e r a l c o u r t ' i n c l u d e s a m i l i t a r y court" because courts "military courts are federally created e s t a b l i s h e d under the U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . " at term " f e d e r a l c o u r t " as i t i s u s e d i n § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, broad The and main would opinion's require i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 3d the is . So. registration c o n v i c t e d o f any q u a l i f y i n g o f f e n s e t h a t c o u r t was, regardless i n some way, of an individual i n e v e r y c o u r t as l o n g c r e a t e d by a f e d e r a l government-¬ o f where t h a t f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t i s l o c a t e d . 24 as CR-10-0540 To s u p p o r t this broad i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e main opinion l o o k s t o t h e 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 and c i t e s E s t e r s v. S t a t e , 480 So. 2d 615 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , i n w h i c h , as t h e main opinion states, "'we held that a prior court-martial c o n v i c t i o n c o u l d be u s e d t o e n h a n c e a s e n t e n c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A l a b a m a 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 , see § 13A-5-9, A l a . Code 1975, so l o n g as t h a t c o n v i c t i o n o t h e r w i s e qualified as a f e l o n y p u r s u a n t Crim. (Temp.) P. P.).'" So. (now 3d Rule at t o Rule 6 ( b ) ( 3 ) ( i v ) , A l a . R. 26.6(b)(3)(iv), . Reliance on A l a . R. Esters Crim. and the 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 , h o w e v e r , i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e when t r y i n g t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a m i l i t a r y c o u r t i s subsumed i n t o the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t " Ala. Code 1975, and § 13A-11-200 w i t h two d i s t i n c t Specifically, 200 i n § 13A-11-200, b e c a u s e § consists portion that a r e two d i s t i n c t statutes structures. as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n p o i n t s of three portions, refers only including a to those q u a l i f y i n g c o n v i c t i o n has o c c u r r e d . 200 s p e c i f i c a l l y 13A-5-9, requires o u t , § 13A-11jurisdictional jurisdictions i n which a I n o t h e r w o r d s , § 13A-11- that, before the duty t o r e g i s t e r a r i s e s , an i n d i v i d u a l must have b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f a q u a l i f y i n g 25 CR-10-0540 offense i n a s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n - - t h a t i s , " i n any s t a t e o r municipal c o u r t i n Alabama, o r f e d e r a l c o u r t , o r so c o n v i c t e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n any c o u r t h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n the jurisdiction o f s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l courts similar to i n Alabama." I f an i n d i v i d u a l h a d p r e v i o u s l y been c o n v i c t e d o f a q u a l i f y i n g offense outside these jurisdictional limits no duty to register arises. Section 13A-5-9, on the other r e q u i r i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r e v i o u s hand, h a s no l a n g u a g e f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n t o have been i n a s p e c i f i c j u r i s d i c t i o n b e f o r e t h e i n d i v i d u a l c o u l d be s e n t e n c e d as an h a b i t u a l f e l o n y o f f e n d e r . T h i s C o u r t has h e l d that 1975,] specifically felony.' (Emphasis "[§] 13A-5-9, '[P]reviously [ A l a . Code convicted o f any says, added.) C l e a r l y , t h i s l a n g u a g e means t h a t a l l f e l o n i e s come w i t h i n t h e purview of the h a b i t u a l felony offender their origin." Crim. App. Watson v. S t a t e , 1980). Thus, statute, regardless of 392 So. 2d 1274, 1279 i n the (Ala. habitual-felony-offender context i t does n o t m a t t e r w h e t h e r t h e p r i o r f e l o n y c o n v i c t i o n occurred i n a m i l i t a r y c o u r t b e c a u s e t h a t s t a t u t e , as w r i t t e n , contemplates a l l felony convictions. 26 CR-10-0540 Thus, § 13A-11-200 5-9, i s more n a r r o w l y t a i l o r e d t h a n § 13A- a n d t o i n t e r p r e t § 13A-11-200 i n t h e same manner as § 13A-5-9 t o i n c l u d e m i l i t a r y - c o u r t c o n v i c t i o n s c o n s t r u e s § 13A11-200 too broadly jurisdictional the and gives § 13A-11-200 the same l i m i t a t i o n as § 1 3 A - 5 - 9 - - t h a t i s , none. main o p i n i o n ' s construction o f § 13A-11-200 Thus, ignores the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t we n o t c o n s t r u e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s t o o b r o a d l y and t h a t , i n s t e a d , we must c o n s t r u e c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e s n a r r o w l y to avoid criminalizing actions specifically the i n t e n d t o c r i m i n a l i z e . See, J . D . I . , F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e main o p i n i o n ' s 200 o v e r l o o k s the context used i n that s t a t u t e . i s contained it legislature did not supra. c o n s t r u c t i o n o f § 13A-11- o f t h e t e r m " f e d e r a l c o u r t " as i t i s S p e c i f i c a l l y , the term " f e d e r a l court" i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p o r t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e and i s used i n the context main o p i n i o n ' s of f e d e r a l court construction of the term jurisdiction. "federal The court"--"a c o u r t e s t a b l i s h e d by a f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t " - - i m p r o p e r l y f o c u s e s on the governing body that j u r i s d i c t i o n the court has. context created the court, not the With regard to the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l of the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t , " whether the l e g i s l a t u r e intended 27 however, i t i s unclear the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t " t o CR-10-0540 mean a l l federal courts with courts specific or to federal mean only specific jurisdiction--for federal example, a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t c r e a t e d under A r t i c l e I I I of the U n i t e d States Constitution. unclear, and we Because the term the s t a t u t e i s not p l a i n ; "federal court" is r a t h e r , i t i s ambiguous, must d e t e r m i n e what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended when i t used the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t . " Because the language o f § 13A-11-200 i s ambiguous this C o u r t can "'examine e x t r i n s i c m a t e r i a l s , i n c l u d i n g l e g i s l a t i v e history, to determine [legislative] R e g i o n s Bank, 977 So. 2d 446, 451 intent.'" ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g R e s e r v e Bank o f A t l a n t a v. Thomas, 220 Cir. 2000)). The legislative Pinigis F.3d history 1235, of Federal 1239 this v. (11th statute e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a m i l i t a r y c o u r t i s n o t subsumed i n t h e t e r m " f e d e r a l c o u r t " i n § 13A-11-200. I n Radney v. S t a t e , 840 So. 2d 190, 2002), Radney argued that "[b]ecause 196 he (Ala. Crim. was convicted f e d e r a l c o u r t , not a s t a t e or m u n i c i p a l court ... he was required to r e g i s t e r under § Ala. Code 1 9 7 5 ] , " 840 at t h a t time, as a s e x o f f e n d e r So. 2d a t 195 provided, i n part: 28 App. in not 13A-11-200[, (emphasis added), which, CR-10-0540 " ' I f any p e r s o n ... r e s i d i n g i n A l a b a m a , has h e r e t o f o r e been c o n v i c t e d , o r s h a l l be c o n v i c t e d i n any s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t i n A l a b a m a o r so c o n v i c t e d i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n any c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m i l a r to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n A l a b a m a f o r any o f t h e o f f e n s e s h e r e i n a f t e r enumerated Id. a t 196 ( e m p h a s i s i n o r i g i n a l ) . This Court then concluded: "Nothing i n the p l a i n language of the s t a t u t e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o impose a r e g i s t r a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t on a f e d e r a l l y c o n v i c t e d s e x o f f e n d e r . The p h r a s e s ' i n any s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l c o u r t i n A l a b a m a ' and ' i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n any c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m i l a r to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n A l a b a m a ' a r e c l e a r on t h e i r f a c e and do n o t i n c l u d e c o n v i c t i o n s i n f e d e r a l c o u r t . Radney was c o n v i c t e d i n a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n A l a b a m a ; he was n o t c o n v i c t e d i n a ' s t a t e or m u n i c i p a l c o u r t i n A l a b a m a ' a n d he was n o t c o n v i c t e d ' i n a n o t h e r s t a t e i n any c o u r t having j u r i s d i c t i o n s i m i l a r to the j u r i s d i c t i o n of s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l c o u r t s i n A l a b a m a . ' T h e r e f o r e , Radney was n o t r e q u i r e d t o r e g i s t e r as a s e x o f f e n d e r u n d e r § 13A-11-200; his conviction for violating § 13A-11-200 must be r e v e r s e d . " Id. In statute Radney, when this Court held that nothing "suggests that the L e g i s l a t u r e intended registration offender" requirement on a federally and f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t § 13A-11-200 "convictions i n federal court," this Court t o impose a convicted sex d i d not i n c l u d e was o n l y Radney's c o n v i c t i o n i n a f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t 29 i n the referencing court. CR-10-0540 After Radney was amended § 13A-11-200 decided, the legislature, in 2005, by a d d i n g t h e p h r a s e " o r f e d e r a l c o u r t " to the l i s t of c o u r t s enumerated i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p o r t i o n of the statute. A c t No. 2005-301, A l a . Acts 2005. The a d d i t i o n o f t h e p h r a s e " o r f e d e r a l c o u r t , " a p p e a r s t o remedy only the issue a d d r e s s e d by t h i s Court i n Radney--that i s , w h e t h e r § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e d r e g i s t r a t i o n o f those individuals convicted federal district intended court. to overrule registration of This Thus, a those q u a l i f y i n g offense i t appears our d e c i s i o n only q u a l i f y i n g offense of i n Radney individuals i n a federal district conclusion the i s s u p p o r t e d by ("SORNA"), w h i c h which repealed i s c o d i f i e d at Blockbuster, ("Courts §§ the I n c . v. W h i t e , must consider 819 et So. subsequent require convicted of a court. and r e p l a c e d 15-20A-1 legislature and t o recently A l a b a m a Sex O f f e n d e r R e g i s t r a t i o n and Community Act in a 43, acts Notification § 13A-11-200 seq. 2d enacted See 46 and generally ( A l a . 2001) passed by the L e g i s l a t u r e t o c l a r i f y p r e v i o u s l y ambiguous p r o v i s i o n s . " ) . S e c t i o n 15-20A-10, A l a . Code 1975, r e q u i r e s an i n d i v i d u a l who has been convicted of a q u a l i f y i n g offense 30 to r e g i s t e r CR-10-0540 with the s h e r i f f residence. o f t h e c o u n t y where he m a i n t a i n s h i s l e g a l F a i l u r e t o do so i s a C l a s s C felony. § 15-20A- 1 0 ( j ) , A l a . Code 1975. The t e r m " c o n v i c t i o n , " a s i t i s u s e d i n § 15-20A-10, i s d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : "A d e t e r m i n a t i o n o r j u d g m e n t o f g u i l t f o l l o w i n g a v e r d i c t o r f i n d i n g o f g u i l t as t h e r e s u l t o f a t r i a l , a plea of g u i l t y , a plea of nolo contendere, o r an A l f o r d p l e a . C o n v i c t i o n i n c l u d e s , b u t i s n o t limited to, a conviction i n a United States t e r r i t o r y , a conviction i n a federal or m i l i t a r y t r i b u n a l , i n c l u d i n g a c o u r t m a r t i a l conducted by t h e Armed F o r c e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a c o n v i c t i o n f o r an o f f e n s e c o m m i t t e d on an I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n o r o t h e r f e d e r a l p r o p e r t y , a c o n v i c t i o n i n any s t a t e o f the U n i t e d States or a conviction i n a foreign country i f the f o r e i g n country's j u d i c i a l system i s s u c h t h a t i t s a t i s f i e s minimum due p r o c e s s s e t f o r t h i n t h e g u i d e l i n e s under S e c t i o n 111(5)(B) o f P u b l i c Law 109-248. C a s e s on a p p e a l a r e deemed c o n v i c t i o n s u n t i l reversed or overturned." § 15-20A-4(4), A l a . legislature there Code 1975 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . c l e a r l y understood when i t enacted SORNA i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s t i n c t i o n between a f e d e r a l and a m i l i t a r y court. 200 i n r e s p o n s e t o Radney, i t c o u l d have i n c l u d e d "or m i l i t a r y court" 1975; Thus, t h e the legislative court When t h e l e g i s l a t u r e amended § 13A-11- as i t d i d i n § 1 5 - 2 0 A - 4 ( 4 ) , legislature, history that of however, this 31 d i d not. statute the phrase Ala. Code Thus, the establishes that a CR-10-0540 military court i s not plainly encompassed within the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t " i n § 13A-11-200. M o r e o v e r , b e c a u s e we term the must, as as consider "federal court" whether jurisdictional a military purposes, military-court court that and has Black's Law D i c t i o n a r y 409-10 enforces the courts are jurisdiction, with powers United v. v. 67 M.J. "exercise j u r i s d i c t i o n statutes." look t e r m , we federal therefore, at must court for bring a of ( 9 t h ed. 2009). I entirely 71 19, 26 armed Justice." Additionally, courts defined M.J. the Military of by limited statute," (C.A.A.F. 2012) result) (citing United (C.A.A.F. 70 States cannot 2008)), beyond t h a t granted Willenbring (C.A.A.F. 1 9 9 8 ) . Code i n the 63, c o u r t " i s d e f i n e d as o v e r members o f Article Campbell, J., concurring Wuterich, a would, jurisdiction that (Stucky, is the term " m i l i t a r y and States jurisdictional court forces "[m]ilitary above, c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r t h e p u r v i e w o f § 13A-11-200. Jurisdictionally, "[a] a discussed v. Neurauter, by 48 and the a p p l i c a b l e M.J. 152, Furthermore, " t h e Supreme C o u r t has h e l d t h a t C o n g r e s s may not extend c o u r t - m a r t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n to cover c i v i l i a n s who h a v e no m i l i t a r y s t a t u s i n p e a c e t i m e , e v e n i f they are accompanying U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r c e s overseas 32 157 CR-10-0540 as e m p l o y e e s o r d e p e n d e n t s . Likewise, a courtm a r t i a l may n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a f o r m e r s e r v i c e m e m b e r whose r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e armed f o r c e s has b e e n s e v e r e d c o m p l e t e l y as a r e s u l t o f a v a l i d d i s c h a r g e and who i s n o t o t h e r w i s e i n a s t a t u s that i s subject to c o u r t - m a r t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . See U n i t e d S t a t e s ex r e l . T o t h v. Q u a r l e s , 350 U.S. 11, 14-15, 76 S. C t . 1, 3-4, 100 L. Ed. 8 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ; S m i t h v. V a n d e r b u s h , 47 M.J. 56, 58-59 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . " Id. a t 157-58. Thus, m i l i t a r y o v e r s e r v i c e m e m b e r s who Code o f M i l i t a r y also courts III, § 1; v i o l a t e the p r o v i s i o n s of the c o u r t s , on I I I of the of see limited also A m e r i c a , 511 U.S. within the of the the Uniform United o t h e r hand, are States jurisdiction. Kokkonen 375, 377 c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n violations only Justice. Federal d i s t r i c t under A r t i c l e c o u r t s have j u r i s d i c t i o n v. C o n s t i t u t i o n and See U.S. Guardian (1994). created Const. Life Although Ins. are art. Co. of federal district over cases i n v o l v i n g f e d e r a l crimes, Uniform statutorily Code o f M i l i t a r y defined f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s and J u s t i c e are jurisdictional limits f e d e r a l c o u r t s of appeal. See not of §§ 28 U.S.C. 1291-1369. Additionally, explained, court with as the "a m i l i t a r y jurisdiction United tribunal States i s an A r t i c l e independent 33 Supreme of the I Court has legislative judicial power CR-10-0540 created a n d d e f i n e d b y A r t i c l e I I I . Ex p a r t e Q u i r i n , 317 U.S. 1, 39 ( 1 9 4 2 ) ; W h e l c h e l v. M c D o n a l d , 340 U.S. 122, 127 (1950); Kennedy v. M e n d o z a - M a r t i n e z , 372 U.S. 144, 165 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . " v. Mayden, 413 U.S. 665 (1973) It intend (emphasis added). i s logical t o conclude that to include a military court the l e g i s l a t u r e d i dnot when i t used the term " f e d e r a l c o u r t " i n § 13A-11-200 b e c a u s e s e r v i c e m e m b e r s to the j u r i s d i c t i o n same rights as federal courts. 1997), a case of m i l i t a r y civilians courts subject which tell" policy, Judge Noonan, are not afforded the was challenging the under t h e "don't ask/don't in a concurring opinion, explained: " I n p e a c e as i n war, i n t h e P e n t a g o n as on t h e b a t t l e f i e l d , t h e m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e s a r e t r e a t e d as a u n i v e r s e d i s t i n c t from t h e c i v i l i a n w o r l d r u l e d by t h e o r d i n a r y d e c i s i o n s o f c o u r t s . See R o s t k e r v. G o l d b e r g , 453 U.S. 57, 68, 101 S. C t . 2646, 2653-54, 69 L. E d . 2d 478 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . "In acknowledgment o f t h e s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a t u s o f t h e m i l i t a r y , t h e c o u r t s have drawn b a c k from a l i t e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f a l l p a r t s o f the C o n s t i t u t i o n t o m i l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . Not o n l y a r e t h e armed s e r v i c e s a w o r l d where c l a s s e s o f c i t i z e n s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d by law, b u t t h e y c o n s t i t u t e a w o r l d i n w h i c h j u s t i c e i s a f f o r d e d on d i f f e r e n t 34 of 106 F.3d 1420 ( 9 t h C i r . Philips c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of h i s discharge subject to the j u r i s d i c t i o n I n P h i l i p s v. P e r r y , in Gosa CR-10-0540 terms than i t i s p r o v i d e d t o c i v i l i a n citizens. P a r k e r r v . L e v y ] , 417 U.S. [733] a t 750, 94 S. C t . [2547] a t 2559 [ ( 1 9 7 4 ) ] . "Before a military tribunal, a defendant's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a r e n o t t h e same a s b e f o r e a c i v i l i a n c o u r t . T h e r e i s no r i g h t t o a t r i a l b y a j u r y o f one's p e e r s . Kahn v . A n d e r s o n , 255 U.S. 1, 8-9, 41 S. C t . 224, 225-26, 65 L. E d . 469 ( 1 9 2 1 ) . The r i g h t o f a p p e a l f r o m a c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n i s channelled and r e s t r i c t e d . 28 U.S.C. § 1259 ( c e r t i o r a r i t o t h e Supreme C o u r t from Court o f Appeals f o r t h e Armed F o r c e s ) ; 10 U.S.C. § 867 ( r e v i e w b y C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e Armed F o r c e s ) ; 10 U.S.C. § 866 ( r e v i e w b y C o u r t of Criminal A p p e a l s ) . Habeas c o r p u s does n o t e x i s t i n i t s f u l l r o b u s t n e s s . B u r n s v . W i l s o n , 346 U.S. 137, 138-40, 73 S. C t . 1045, 1046-48, 97 L. E d . 1508 ( 1 9 5 3 ) . The p r o t e c t i o n s o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment a r e l i m i t e d . See K u r t z v . M o f f i t t , 115 U.S. 487, 504-05, 6 S. C t . 148, 154-55, 29 L. E d . 458 ( 1 8 8 5 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t u c k e y , 10 M.J. 347, 357, 361 (C.M.A. 1 9 8 1 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . M i d d l e t o n , 10 M.J. 1 2 3 , 126-27 (C.M.A. 1981); U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Jacoby, 11 C.M.A. 428, 430-31, 29 C.M.R. 244, 246-47, ... ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; M i l . R u l . E v i d . 311-317 ( g o v e r n i n g s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s i n armed f o r c e s p r o c e e d i n g s ) . The v a g u e n e s s t e s t o f t h e F i f t h Amendment a p p l i e s l e s s s t r i c t l y . P a r k e r , 417 U.S. a t 756, 94 S. C t . a t 2561-62. The r e m e d i e s f o r r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a r e s h a r p l y and u n p l e a s a n t l y l i m i t e d . C h a p p e l l v . W a l l a c e , 462 U.S. 296, 303-05, 103 S. C t . 2362, 2367-68, 76 L. E d . 2d 586 ( 1 9 8 3 ) . 106 F . 3 d a t 1431-32. B e c a u s e m i l i t a r y c o u r t s a n d f e d e r a l d i s t r i c t c o u r t s have different jurisdictional limits, t h e term t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l p o r t i o n o f § 13A-11-200 military court. To r e a d "federal court" i n does n o t i n c l u d e a the statute t o include a m i l i t a r y 35 CR-10-0540 court c o n v i c t i o n would overly broad construction would ensnare b e h a v i o r t h a t i s not " c l e a r l y proscribed." Accordingly, be an I would reverse and t h e judgment of t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r t h a t court t o v a c a t e B i l l i n g s l e y ' s c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e f o r f a i l u r e t o r e g i s t e r under § 13A-11-200, A l a . Code 36 1975.

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.