Patricia Williams v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/29/2012 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, 2011-2012 CR-10-1711 Patricia Williams v. S t a t e o f Alabama A p p e a l from H o u s t o n C i r c u i t C o u r t (CC-05-1513.61; CC-05-1514.61; and CC-06-790.61) KELLUM, Judge. Patricia dismissal pursuant Williams appeals of her petition the circuit court's f o rpostconviction t o R u l e 3 2 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. relief, summary filed CR-10-1711 In 2007, degree W i l l i a m s was unlawful specifically manufacture substance, sentenced, as a h a b i t u a l manufacturing conviction. convictions and sentences trafficking This Court on a p p e a l of a S h e was imprisonment f o rthe affirmed f o r the Williams's i n an o p i n i o n i s s u e d 995 S o . 2 d 915 resulted home a n d a s h e d mobile convictions located t h e m o b i l e home. an active other 1 from ( A l a . Crim. that laboratory. was search law-enforcement a g l a s s j a r or vase liquid a o f j u d g m e n t on of Williams's approximately five I n t h e shed, methamphetamine things, boiling a certificate on 18, 2008. The issued in imprisonment f o r a n d t o 15 y e a r s ' i m p r i s o n m e n t This Court first- substance, methamphetamine. to l i f e W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e , June of of unlawful possession conviction, possession 2008). of offender, to l i f e conviction, App. controlled count specifically trafficking 30, 2008. a one a n d one c o u n t controlled May of methamphetamine, methamphetamine, the c o n v i c t e d o f one c o u n t officers Officers on a h o t p l a t e later feet determined found, behind found among containing a to weigh T h i s c o u r t may t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f i t s own r e c o r d s , a n d we do s o i n t h i s c a s e . S e e H u l l v . S t a t e , 607 S o . 2 d 3 6 9 , 371 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 1 9 9 2 ) . 1 2 CR-10-1711 approximately 250 m i l l i l i t e r s and t o c o n t a i n methamphetamine, r e f e r r e d t o as " m e t h o i l " ; two 2 0 - o u n c e l i q u i d - f i l l e d and a turkey baster. In the mobile home in bedroom i d e n t i f i e d as W i l l i a m s ' s room, o f f i c e r s distilled w a t e r , Red D e v i l b r a n d acid, coffee the and manufacture containing filters, padlocked found acetone, lye, iodized salt, a l l of which of methamphetamine, what a bottles; muriatic a r e commonly used i n as w e l l as a makeup was later determined filed this, her t o be completed case powder methamphetamine. Williams January she was trial 18, 2 0 1 1 . actually court Rule I n her p e t i t i o n , Williams innocent crimes, of the lacked j u r i s d i c t i o n impose t h e sentences because, violated second, principles alleged and that 32.2(a), ( b ) , and granted Williams's (2) on (1) t h a t that the her three convictions The filed jeopardy. r e s p o n s e a n d a m o t i o n f o r summary d i s p o s i t i o n arguing petition to render the judgments or to she s a i d , of double 32 claims were 2 a on J u l y 5, 2 0 1 1 , precluded ( c ) , and were m e r i t l e s s . t h e S t a t e ' s m o t i o n and summarily State by The c i r c u i t dismissed Rules court Williams's The S t a t e d i d n o t d i s p u t e t h e f a c t s a l l e g e d i n W i l l i a m s ' s petition; i t argued only that her claims were m e r i t l e s s b e c a u s e t h e j u r y h a d r e t u r n e d v e r d i c t s o f g u i l t y on a l l t h r e e counts. 2 3 CR-10-1711 petition on J u l y summary appeal, a notation on t h e case-action- sheet. On 6, 2 0 1 1 , w i t h petition. We Williams address reasserts each the claims raised i n her innocent of the i n turn. I. Williams crimes. contends This response, that claim i s , as time-barred by petition was Contrary to Williams's are subject State, filed she i s a c t u a l l y after argued Rule 32.2(c) the l i m i t a t i o n s assertion, to the preclusions 886 S o . 2 d 123 innocence i s subject dismissal of this by claims i n Rule the because period 32.2. claim was bars). ini t s Williams's had of a c t u a l ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2003) to procedural State expired. innocence See R u s s e l l v. (claim of a c t u a l Therefore, summary convictions violate proper. II. Williams also contends that her three principles of double she in did manufacturing her and jeopardy. petition, -- that trafficking p r i n c i p l e s b e c a u s e , she says, evidence Specifically, her she a r g u e s , convictions violate as for double-jeopardy t h e y w e r e b o t h b a s e d on t h e same a methamphetamine laboratory 4 found i n a shed on CR-10-1711 her property. that her She also trafficking double-jeopardy argues, and principles as she d i d i n h e r possession because, petition, convictions she says, violate possession of methamphetamine i s a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of t r a f f i c k i n g i n methamphetamine. neither claims are j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c l a i m s a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o any o f t h e p r e c l u s i o n s i n R u l e 32.2. parte Heard Trawick, Benefield, In v. 972 932 distinct which or v. 999 2d United States each 2d does First, 992 3 ( A l a . 2007 ) ; ( A l a . 2007 ) ; States, Supreme Court constitutes are the two and not." The 284 Ex Ex parte U.S. 299, 304 h e l d t h a t "where t h e a test violation to offenses p r o v i s i o n requires proof the other pronged t e s t . there petition. ( A l a . 2005). transaction whether So. 782 statutory provisions, determine whether So. Blockburger act State, S o . 2 d 92 (1932), the United same i n her previous and these e.g., raised of these Thus, See, were Both o f an Blockburger be or of applied only one, additional test "the t h r e s h o l d i n q u i r y under two is a to i s fact two- Blockburger In her previous petition, Williams challenged the effectiveness of her t r i a l and a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l f o r n o t challenging her c o n v i c t i o n s on double-jeopardy grounds. However, she d i d n o t r a i s e t h e u n d e r l y i n g s u b s t a n t i v e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y c l a i m s s h e now r a i s e s i n h e r s e c o n d p e t i t i o n . 3 5 CR-10-1711 is whether the alleged statutory same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n . ' " 545 188, (Tenn. 2 0 1 2 ) . 141 P . 3 d requires the 359 (Ala. Crim. arose Thompson, 197 C o n n . analysis of determination does the offense. (1991). double part the conduct underlying J r . v. S t a t e , 712 S o . 2 d ("Before i t must Blockburger the double appear ... test to prohibit single See S w a f f o r d Thus, whether jeopardy trial v. arose that (citations 112 N.M. rather v. ("An threshold of whether Clause conviction, acts 3, conduct "does n o t d e t e r m i n e 6 a The D o u b l e J e o p a r d y a defendant's violation; (1985) analysis for discrete the o u t o f t h e 'same prosecution, State, jeopardy and S t a t e involves substantive d i s t i n c t elements."). in a ( A l a . 1998); the offenses and a 182, of the test 6 7 , 7 2 , 495 A . 2 d 1 0 5 4 , 1058 same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n a ... S o . 2 d 372 of whether operate punishment App. 1997) 712 or transaction,' not first 140 N.M. o u t o f t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n . " aff'd, they contain ("The of whether i s triggered omitted)), act (2006) from ' t h e 362 S.W.3d 5 3 0 , v. Armendariz, i s u n i t a r y . " ) ; R.L.G., prohibition crimes v. W a t k i n s , State the determination offenses 348, State See a l s o 5 2 6 , 532 violations arise and o f t h e same 810 P.2d 1223 constitutes the whether there i s i t determines i f there CR-10-1711 could 467, be a violation." 133 P . 3 d 4 8 , 62 Second, State then Schoonover, 281 K a n . 4 5 3 , (2006). i f the offenses transaction, v. d i d arise from t h e same i t must be d e t e r m i n e d w h e t h e r e a c h r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f an a d d i t i o n a l f a c t w h i c h t h e o t h e r i.e., whether t h e two jeopardy purposes. offenses a r e t h e "same" U.S. 770, construction "ordinarily two 297 (1975), on the does n o t i n t e n d not (quoting lesser ("[We proscribe intend to included Blockburger." App. assumption to punish rule that f o r double- presume two that and a g r e a t e r Brown v. O h i o , legislature two under 445 States, U.S. 517 U.S. statutory a l e g i s l a t u r e does f o r that offense.") settled "that a r e t h e same offense under 1 6 1 , 166 n.6 and Lewis v. S t a t e , 7 statutory States, I t i s well 432 U.S. 2009). a 'where punishments at 692). of States, t h e same o f f e n s e Whalen v. U n i t e d 445 U.S. a l s o Heard, supra, Crim. and i s a t h e "same o f f e n s e , " ' impose Whalen, does n o t , I a n n e l l i v. U n i t e d See a l s o R u t l e d g e v . U n i t e d (1996) provisions See based 692 ( 1 9 8 0 ) . 292, a 7 8 5 n.17 different statutes." 684, offense " [ A ] p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t e s t f o c u s e s on t h e s t a t u t o r y elements of the offense," 420 act or (1977). 57 S o . 3 d 807 (Ala. CR-10-1711 Manufacturing and Trafficking With respect to W i l l i a m s ' s challenge to her manufacturing and t r a f f i c k i n g c o n v i c t i o n s , did arise, as transaction, "meth Williams argues, in the previously addressed argument. I n Snowden v . 2006), this and shed. State, transaction, methamphetamine upheld manufacturing and, each So. 2d against § methamphetamine under § r e q u i r e p r o o f o f an e l e m e n t or on t h e v a s e of Court jeopardy. double-jeopardy ( A l a . Crim. double-jeopardy o u t o f t h e same a c t trafficking A l a . Code 13A-12-217, 1975, summary Therefore, Williams's convictions do n o t v i o l a t e p r i n c i p l e s dismissal of this proper. 8 claim in and A l a . Code t h a t t h e o t h e r does not f i r s t - d e g r e e m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine methamphetamine has i n methamphetamine that 13A-12-231(11), act t h u s , t h a t t h e y w e r e n o t t h e same o f f e n s e f o r p u r p o s e s double and same 1004 a arising finding convictions this similar f o r both t r a f f i c k i n g specifically under a 968 and m a n u f a c t u r i n g methamphetamine 1975, the However, rejected Court challenge convictions or from i . e . , b o t h c o n v i c t i o n s were based o i l " found App. i t i s clear that both of f o r both and t r a f f i c k i n g i n of double in her jeopardy, petition was CR-10-1711 Trafficking Williams's challenge and Possession to her t r a f f i c k i n g convictions i s more p r o b l e m a t i c . trafficking c o n v i c t i o n and t h e p o s s e s s i o n based on the threshold second same inquiry prong of Specifically, the for a different perhaps the liquid possession argues liquid In charge purpose that which was than of t h e powder that "the evidence the l i q u i d i t was i t was methamphetamine that o i l " i n the shed. form v. 2001), this Court facts will dictate State, 823 recognized whether differentiated So. that a by 9 2d 717 "[o]nly or than p. home of the 23.) ( A l a . Crim. App. an a n a l y s i s o f t h e defendant's time and Williams's i n the mobile (State's brief, than intended methamphetamine, thus, that f o r the location in a different and, and t h e shows the basis nearby), the triggered. a c t or t r a n s a c t i o n from her p o s s e s s i o n Townsend sufficiently not in a different methamphetamine" "meth thus, is formed (albeit the c o n v i c t i o n were n o t test Blockburger significantly, a separate that the methamphetamine most argues i s not s a t i s f i e d possession liquid possession under Blockburger the State the State t r a n s a c t i o n and, powdered methamphetamine unlawful was act or The and possession location as was to CR-10-1711 constitute separate units constitutes a single offense." had been convicted actual possession fleeing from of for prosecution or whether 823 S o . 2 d a t 7 2 4 . trafficking i n cocaine Townsend based on h i s o f 22.4 g r a m s o f c o c a i n e h e d i s c a r d e d the police i t while and h i s c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of 17.91 grams o f c o c a i n e , w h i c h he a d m i t t e d o w n i n g , f o u n d i nh i s bedroom l a t e r should t h a t same d a y . have been p r o s e c u t e d T o w n s e n d a r g u e d t h a t he f o r two c o u n t s i n s t e a d o f one c o u n t o f t r a f f i c k i n g . that theory, divided into perpetrator Townsend, 2d two that o r more of cocaine, This Court, i n rejecting "'[a] single offenses and crime thereby cannot subject t o m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same 823 S o . 2 d a t 722 7 8 6 , 787 occurred recognized of possession ( A l a .1987)), ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e and h e l d t h a t t h e two simultaneously, thus constituting be the offense,'" Darby, 516 So. "possessions" one "unit of p r o s e c u t i o n " r i s i n g t o the l e v e l of t r a f f i c k i n g because of the combined weight In part, 138, of the addressing the cocaine. issue, this Court first t h e f o l l o w i n g f r o m Commonwealth v. O r t i z , 725 N.E.2d "We Mass. 1030, 1033 quoted, 431 M a s s . 1 3 4 , (2000): r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n C o m m o n w e a l t h v . R a b b , 431 123, 130, 725 N.E.2d 1036 (2000), that 10 in CR-10-1711 separate prosecutions f o r possession of a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e u n d e r [ M a s s . G e n . L a w s ] c . 94C, § 3 2 E , do not o f f e n d d o u b l e j e o p a r d y p r i n c i p l e s , as l o n g as the amount of the s p e c i f i c controlled substance s u p p o r t i n g each c o n v i c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a 'separate i t e m ' t h a t i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by time, l o c a t i o n , o r i n t e n d e d p u r p o s e . ..." _ This Court 246-47, then _ 1 _ r T \ / r _ _ _ quoted 424 S . E . 2 d -r 1 r\ from H i t e v. S t a t e , 885, 886-87 (1992), A 206 Ga. A p p . as f o l l o w s : " A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e two s e i z u r e s c a n n o t be c o m b i n e d a n d t h a t ... h i s i n d i c t m e n t f o r t r a f f i c k i n g s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s m i s s e d a n d he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n charged with separate v i o l a t i o n s of possession of cocaine. We d i s a g r e e . A p p e l l a n t ' s argument would enable persons to escape p r o s e c u t i o n f o r t r a f f i c k i n g by dividing cocaine into s m a l l e r q u a n t i t i e s and storing the smaller quantities in different locations. '[E]ither actual or constructive possession would s u f f i c e to e s t a b l i s h the element of possession necessary to support a c o n v i c t i o n of trafficking.... [Cits.]' W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 199 Ga. A p p . 5 6 6 , 5 7 0 ( 4 ) , 405 S . E . 2 d 716 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Despite t h e f a c t t h a t t h e q u a n t i t i e s w e r e d i s c o v e r e d i n two different locations, immediately prior to h i s a r r e s t , a p p e l l a n t had ' d i r e c t p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l ' over t h e c o c a i n e i n t h e t r u c k a n d was t h e r e f o r e i n a c t u a l possession of i t . S h r o p s h i r e v . S t a t e , 2 0 1 Ga. A p p . 4 2 1 , 4 2 2 , 411 S . E . 2 d 339 ( 1 9 9 1 ) . A t t h e same t i m e , he ' k n o w i n g l y [ h a d ] b o t h t h e p o w e r a n d i n t e n t i o n ... to e x e r c i s e dominion or c o n t r o l over the [cocaine d i s c o v e r e d i n h i s j a c k e t p o c k e t ] ' ( i d . a t 4 2 2 , 411 S . E . 2 d 3 3 9 ) a n d was t h u s i n c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n of the latter quantity. In our view, this constitutes sufficient evidence of possession to s u p p o r t t h e charge o f t r a f f i c k i n g i n c o c a i n e , and the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not e r r i n denying appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment." This Court then explained: 11 245, CR-10-1711 "Under t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and l a w b e f o r e u s , we f i r s t n o t e t h a t § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 2 h a s no language p r o h i b i t i n g a p r o s e c u t o r from a g g r e g a t i n g s e p a r a t e supplies of the specific controlled substance possessed by a defendant. Clearly, Townsend simultaneously possessed both q u a n t i t i e s s e i z e d : the o f f i c e r s i n p u r s u i t of him observed him i n a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e 2 2 . 4 - g r a m q u a n t i t y he d i s c a r d e d while fleeing, a n d he a d m i t t e d o w n e r s h i p of the 17.91-gram q u a n t i t y s e i z e d from h i s bedroom. The evidence c l e a r l y supported the submission of the t r a f f i c k i n g charge t o t h e j u r y , and t h e j u r y c o u l d have r e a s o n a b l y found beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt t h a t T o w n s e n d p o s s e s s e d 28 g r a m s o r m o r e o f c o c a i n e . We e m p h a s i z e t h a t , as w i t h a l l sufficiency-of-the-evidence questions, this holding is l i m i t e d to the p a r t i c u l a r facts of t h i s case. " T o w n s e n d ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f two v i o l a t i o n s o f § 13A-12-212(a)(1) f o r p o s s e s s i o n r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r d o i n g so w o u l d h a v e v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t n o t t o be p l a c e d i n double jeopardy. 'A s i n g l e c r i m e c a n n o t b e d i v i d e d i n t o two o r more o f f e n s e s a n d t h e r e b y s u b j e c t t h e p e r p e t r a t o r t o m u l t i p l e c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t h e same offense. C o n s t . o f 1 9 0 1 , A r t . I , § 9; U.S. C o n s t . Amend. V.' E x p a r t e D a r b y , 5 1 6 S o . 2 d 7 8 6 , 787 (Ala. 1987). Such a q u e s t i o n o f double j e o p a r d y i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g p r i n c i p l e s : "'[I]t has been aptly noted that "the B l o c k b u r g e r t e s t i s i n s u f f i c i e n t w h e r e ... the concern i s not m u l t i p l e charges under separate statutes, but rather successive prosecutions for conduct that may c o n s t i t u t e t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n . " R a s h a d v . B u r t , 108 F . 3 d 677 ( 6 t h C i r . 1997). T h i s i s b e c a u s e when " a d e f e n d a n t is convicted for violating one statute m u l t i p l e t i m e s , t h e same e v i d e n c e t e s t w i l l n e v e r be s a t i s f i e d . " S t a t e v . A d e l , 136 W a s h . 2 d 6 2 9 , 965 P . 2 d 1 0 7 2 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . The 12 CR-10-1711 "appropriate i n q u i r y " i n such a case "asks w h a t ' u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n ' was i n t e n d e d b y t h e L e g i s l a t u r e as t h e p u n i s h a b l e a c t The inquiry requires us to look to the l a n g u a g e and p u r p o s e of t h e s t a t u t e s , to see whether they speak d i r e c t l y to the issue of the appropriate unit of prosecution, and i f they do not, to a s c e r t a i n that u n i t , keeping i n mind that any a m b i g u i t y t h a t a r i s e s i n the process m u s t be r e s o l v e d , u n d e r t h e r u l e o f l e n i t y , i n the defendant's f a v o r . " Commonwealth v. R a b b , 431 M a s s . 1 2 3 , 725 N . E . 2 d 1036 (2000) (concluding that allegedly multiple drug p o s s e s s i o n s j u s t i f y m u l t i p l e charges i f the p o s s e s s i o n s are s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by time, p l a c e or i n t e n d e d purpose, the case here regarding defendant's p o s s e s s i o n of drugs at h i s r e s i d e n c e f o r immediate s a l e and h i s p o s s e s s i o n o f d r u g s a t m o t e l for future sales).' "4 Wayne R. LaFave et a l . , C r i m i n a l Procedure § 1 7 . 4 ( b ) , 2001 P o c k e t P a r t n. 66 ( 2 d e d . 1 9 9 9 ) . See also Project, 'Twenty-Ninth Annual Review of C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e , ' 88 Geo. L . J . 879, 1293 (2000) ('when t h e g o v e r n m e n t s e e k s t o p r o v e t h a t a s i n g l e act or o c c u r r e n c e r e s u l t s i n m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s of t h e same s t a t u t e , t h e r u l e o f l e n i t y r e q u i r e s only one p u n i s h m e n t u n l e s s l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o i m p o s e m u l t i p l e punishments i s shown'). "The question then is whether Townsend's p o s s e s s i o n o f c o c a i n e i n two p l a c e s c o n s t i t u t e s one ' u n i t of p r o s e c u t i o n ' o r two. The q u e s t i o n i s w h a t a c t o r c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t has t h e L e g i s l a t u r e defined as t h e p u n i s h a b l e a c t f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e u n d e r § 1 3 A - 1 2 - 2 1 2 ? We f i n d t h e f o l l o w i n g pertinent: "'The f i r s t s t e p i n the u n i t of prosecution i n q u i r y i s to a n a l y z e the c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e . 13 CR-10-1711 The r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n of the possession s t a t u t e s t a t e s , "any p e r s o n found g u i l t y o f possession of forty grams or less of marihuana shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." [Wash. Rev. Code] 69.50.401(e). P o s s e s s i o n has been d e f i n e d as personal custody or dominion and control. S t a t e v . S t a l e y , 123 W a s h . 2 d 7 94 , 7 9 8 , 872 P . 2 d 502 (1 9 9 4 ) . I f the State establishes the nature of the s u b s t a n c e and t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f it, then the elements of unlawful p o s s e s s i o n have b e e n met. Id. "'RCW 69.50.401(e) f a i l s t o i n d i c a t e whether the L e g i s l a t u r e intended to punish a person multiple times for simple possession based upon the drug being stashed i n m u l t i p l e places. This lack of s t a t u t o r y c l a r i t y favors applying the rule of lenity and finding [the defendant] guilty on only one count of simple possession. Further a n a l y s i s supports t h i s finding. "'The Legislature's intent is obviously relevant when construing an ambiguous s t a t u t e . One way o f c o n s t r u i n g l e g i s l a t i v e intent regarding the unit of prosecution f o r a simple possession crime i s t o r e f e r t o t h e 40 g r a m c u t o f f b e t w e e n a misdemeanor and a f e l o n y . See RCW 69.50.401(e). The Legislature has i n d i c a t e d the d e s i r e to punish possession o f o v e r 40 g r a m s o f m a r i j u a n a as a more serious crime. In doing so, the L e g i s l a t u r e f o c u s e d s o l e l y on t h e q u a n t i t y of the drug, and d i d not r e f e r e n c e t h e s p a t i a l or temporal aspects of possession. I n d e e d , i f o f f i c e r s h a d f o u n d 21 g r a m s i n [the defendant's] s t o r e , a n d 21 g r a m s i n h i s c a r , p r o s e c u t o r s most c e r t a i n l y w o u l d 14 CR-10-1711 h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o a g g r e g a t e t h e two s t a s h e s and charge [the defendant] with felony possession. C f . R a s h a d [ v . B u r t ] , 108 F . 3 d [ 6 7 7 , ] 682 [ ( 6 t h C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ] ( a p p l y i n g same r e a s o n i n g i n f i n d i n g j u s t one c o u n t a r o s e from defendant's p o s s e s s i n g drugs i n h i s h o u s e a n d more i n h i s c a r ) ; S t a t e v. L o p e z , 79 Wash. A p p . 7 5 5 , 7 6 2 , 904 P . 2 d 1 1 7 9 (1995) ('If the source of the drug or the m a n n e r i n w h i c h i t was p o s s e s s e d was a determining factor, a careful defendant could avoid the heightened penalty simply by making s u r e he a c q u i r e d t h e m i n o r d i v i d e d them i n t o amounts o f l e s s t h a t two kilograms.'). "'... A l l o f t h e d r u g s f o u n d i n t h i s case were w i t h i n [the d e f e n d a n t ' s ] d o m i n i o n and control at t h e same time. The possession statute does not authorize multiple convictions based upon a drug being stashed i n multiple places within a defendant's actual or constructive possession. "'... The L e g i s l a t u r e d e c l a r e d i t a m i s d e m e a n o r t o p o s s e s s 40 g r a m s o r l e s s o f marijuana. A person i s equally g u i l t y of p o s s e s s i o n whether t h a t p e r s o n has t h e drug s t a s h e d i n one p l a c e , o r h i d d e n i n s e v e r a l places under the person's dominion and control. T h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y i n d i c a t i o n the L e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o p u n i s h a person m u l t i p l e times merely because the person separates and keeps small amounts of marijuana i n different locations. We f i n d t h e u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n i n RCW 6 9 . 5 0 . 4 0 1 ( e ) i s p o s s e s s i n g 40 g r a m s o f m a r i j u a n a o r l e s s , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e r e o r i n how many l o c a t i o n s the drug i s kept.' 15 CR-10-1711 " S t a t e v . A d e l , 136 Wash. 2 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 5 - 3 7 , 965 P . 2 d 1072, 1075-76 (1998) ( f i r s t e m p h a s i s a d d e d ; s e c o n d emphasis original; citation omitted) (double jeopardy barred multiple convictions f o r simple p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a b a s e d on m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d i n the d e f e n d a n t ' s s t o r e and i n h i s c a r p a r k e d o u t s i d e his store). C o m p a r e I n r e D a v i s , 142 Wash. 2 d 1 6 5 , 12 P . 3 d 603 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( c o n v i c t i o n s f o r t w o c o u n t s o f possession w i t h i n t e n t to manufacture or d e l i v e r , based on s e p a r a t e s e l f - c o n t a i n e d 'marijuana grow operations' housed in separate single-family d w e l l i n g s l o c a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t c i t i e s d i d not punish t h e d e f e n d a n t t w i c e f o r t h e same s t a t u t o r y ' u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n ' i n v i o l a t i o n of double jeopardy; the f a c t s o f t h e c a s e r e v e a l e d m o r e t h a n one ' u n i t o f possession'). " C o n s i d e r i n g A l a b a m a ' s s t a t u t o r y s c h e m e , we f i n d no indication that the L e g i s l a t u r e intended to punish a person m u l t i p l e times f o r possession merely b e c a u s e t h a t p e r s o n s e p a r a t e d and kept amounts o f c o c a i n e s m a l l e r t h a n 28 g r a m s i n d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s a t t h e same t i m e . Rather, i n punishing possession of over 28 g r a m s a s a m o r e s e r i o u s crime, the L e g i s l a t u r e h a s f o c u s e d s o l e l y on t h e q u a n t i t y o f the drug. The f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e w e r e n o t s u c h t h a t m o r e t h a n one ' u n i t o f p r o s e c u t i o n ' was p r e s e n t . The c o c a i n e f o u n d i n Townsend's bedroom and t h e cocaine he d r o p p e d while fleeing were p r o p e r l y t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e u n i t o f p o s s e s s i o n b e c a u s e t h e circumstances i n v o l v e d h i s p o s s e s s i o n of cocaine at t h e same t i m e , i . e . , t h e t w o q u a n t i t i e s w e r e w i t h i n T o w n s e n d ' s d o m i n i o n a n d c o n t r o l a t t h e same t i m e . Under these p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s , had the p r o s e c u t i o n brought m u l t i p l e charges under § 13A-12-212(a)(1), i t would have i m p e r m i s s i b l y d i v i d e d h i s conduct and violated the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l prohibition against subdividing a single criminal a c t and imposing m u l t i p l e punishments for i t . So. " F i n a l l y , we n o t e 2 d 1 3 0 8 , 1312 n.2 t h a t , i n Sears v. S t a t e , ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 5 ) , 16 479 the CR-10-1711 c o u r t s t a t e d , ' [ I ] f the o f f e n s e s of p o s s e s s i o n and trafficking stem from possession of the same controlled substance, the two offenses are not separate offenses, but rather the offense of possession is a lesser offense included in the o f f e n s e of t r a f f i c k i n g . ' I f we a d o p t e d T o w n s e n d ' s a r g u m e n t -that simultaneous possession of two s t a s h e s , one b y a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n a n d t h e o t h e r b y c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n , c o n s t i t u t e d two o f f e n s e s -¬ the above o b s e r v a t i o n would not be true. For example, under Townsend's t h e o r y , had one of h i s s t a s h e s b e e n m o r e t h a n 28 g r a m s , b u t t h e o t h e r s t a s h l e s s t h a n 28 g r a m s , he c o u l d h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d for both trafficking and possession a result r e j e c t e d by A l a b a m a c a s e l a w . ..." Townsend, emphasis 823 So. Townsend prosecution" instructive and under 721-24 (footnotes omitted; rise a to possessing a 13A-12-231(11), the whether a the proper statute, the quantity possession some i t is "unit of powder rise conduct methamphetamine, c o n v i c t i o n under § to the constituted one defendant's Indeed, trafficking "the other espoused in conduct 17 same of nonetheless 13A-12-212, a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of l i q u i d methamphetamine, under B l o c k b u r g e r . to single small "meth o i l , " g i v i n g similar involved here i n our a n a l y s i s of whether W i l l i a m s ' s possessing giving at added). Although in 2d c o n v i c t i o n under act or or § transaction" s t a t e s have adopted a v i e w Townsend for c o n s t i t u t e s the determining same act or CR-10-1711 transaction f o r purposes of double jeopardy. Schoonover, supra, following t h e Kansas f a c t o r s t o be Supreme F o r example, i n Court set forth the considered: "[S]ome f a c t o r s t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f conduct i s u n i t a r y , i n o t h e r words i f i t i s t h e 'same c o n d u c t , ' i n c l u d e : (1) w h e t h e r t h e a c t s o c c u r a t o r n e a r t h e same t i m e ; (2) w h e t h e r t h e a c t s o c c u r a t t h e same l o c a t i o n ; (3) w h e t h e r t h e r e i s a c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e a c t s , i np a r t i c u l a r whether t h e r e was a n i n t e r v e n i n g e v e n t ; a n d (4) w h e t h e r there i s a f r e s h impulse motivating some o f t h e conduct." 281 K a n . a t 4 9 7 , 133 P . 3 d a t 7 9 . Supreme Court analyzing include has whether 'time held that conduct and p l a c e (Minn. 141 objective.'" 2006) (quoting N.W.2d 5 1 7 , whether 524-25 the acts location, "[f]actors i s a ... State State single v. Johnson, (1966)). purpose.'" F.3d 677 , Rabb, 431 M a s s . 1997 ) ) . 1 2 3 , 725 N.E.2d 18 of to obtain a single 707 N.W.2d 6 6 0 , 664 273 M i n n . 394,404, by on time, S t a t e v . F a r r , 160 N.H. 8 0 3 , 7 A . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 2 (2010 ) ( q u o t i n g ( 6 t hC i r . incident t h e segment differentiated 810, 681 when New H a m p s h i r e a l s o f o c u s e s are "'sufficiently or intended behavioral b y an e f f o r t v. B e r t s c h , the Minnesota considered [and] whether c o n d u c t i n v o l v e d was m o t i v a t e d criminal Likewise, Rashad See a l s o 1036 (2000). v. Burt, 108 Commonwealth v . CR-10-1711 In the considering State these that factors Williams's methamphetamine and methamphetamine her or here, we cannot possession of possession "meth the of o i l " were agree powder the separate with liquid acts of possession. B o t h " s t a s h e s " w e r e f o u n d a t e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same location. Although t h e powder inside W i l l i a m s ' s mobile inside a shed home just i n close was found o i l " was a n d t h e "meth behind W i l l i a m s ' s mobile and t h e shed were located home methamphetamine found the mobile t o each proximity home, o t h e r and o n t h e same p r o p e r t y , p r o p e r t y b e l o n g i n g t o W i l l i a m s . B o t h " s t a s h e s " w e r e a l s o f o u n d a t t h e same t i m e , a n d W i l l i a m s , who was not present at the time of the search, clearly had c o n s t r u c t i v e p o s s e s s i o n o f b o t h " s t a s h e s " s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . See Townsend, P.3d supra. 985 possession (2009) of methamphetamine possession were See a l s o 698 with of both So. (striking 2d intent or stashes i n t h e same 1206 convictions f o rt r a f f i c k i n g (Fla. for possession of where of location), 1997) 80, 206 convictions and to distribute quantities and 146 N.M. defendant's methamphetamine simultaneous State, S t a t e v. Q u i c k , defendant's methamphetamine and Gibbs (striking v. defendant's b a s e d on p o s s e s s i o n o f c o c a i n e a n d 19 CR-10-1711 simple both p o s s e s s i o n o f c o c a i n e where quantities o r s t a s h e s were defendant's simultaneous possession of a n d i n t h e same location). In addition, methamphetamine inside the many laboratory the mobile powder found of both but thus part of a indicating single t h e o t h e r powder -- t h e y were s u b s t a n c e -- m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e . still controlled substance. "methamphetamine its salts, (Emphasis added.) controlled Regulation The by the f o r m s -- o n e t h e same 420-7-2, containing or salt controlled refers i n Schedules schedules of Board A l a . Admin. 20 Code refers to Health isomers." o n l y t o "a I through controlled of statute methamphetamine, of i t s o p t i c a l statute liquid between the form of enumerated State Finally, S e c t i o n 13A-12-231(11) The p o s s e s s i o n substance 13A-12-212. promulgated isomers, different Neither the t r a f f i c k i n g o r any m i x t u r e optical a s was that Williams's operation. nor t h e p o s s e s s i o n s t a t u t e d i f f e r e n t i a t e s the bedroom " s t a s h e s " was n o t m o t i v a t e d b y a was f o r the i n t h e shed were d i s c o v e r e d a l t h o u g h t h e two s t a s h e s were i n d i f f e r e n t and necessary home i n t h e same p a d l o c k e d methamphetamine, possession purpose, of the ingredients V." § substances, and (Department found of in Public CR-10-1711 Health), also 4 substance. make no Schedule distinction I I between controlled the forms the include substances of the following: "(d) or u n l e s s compound, quantity stimulant Stimulants. Unless s p e c i f i c a l l y excepted l i s t e d i n a n o t h e r s c h e d u l e , any m a t e r i a l , m i x t u r e , o r p r e p a r a t i o n w h i c h c o n t a i n s any of the following substances having a e f f e c t on t h e c e n t r a l n e r v o u s system: fi "2. i s o m e r , and Regulation Health Va. 420-7-2, (emphasis App. 565, convictions substance only added). 659 the difference oxycodone -- tablets, A l a . Admin. one and intent count c o u n t was one Code also 553 counts between one See S.E.2d for three with oxycodone, Methamphetamine, i t s s a l t s of i t s isomers." of (Department Lane (2008) was based c o u n t was on of the a controlled where form the p o s s e s s i o n of on t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f based on 51 defendant's oxycodone, was Public Commonwealth, p o s s e s s i o n of three counts based v. (striking to d i s t r i b u t e the salts, of the the liquid oxycodone the p o s s e s s i o n of Endocet S e c t i o n 2 0 - 2 - 2 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e State Board of H e a l t h , unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d , shall a d m i n i s t e r t h i s c h a p t e r a n d may a d d s u b s t a n c e s t o o r d e l e t e o r o reschedule a l l substances enumerated i n the schedules i n Section 20-2-23, 20-2-25, 20-2-27, 20-2-29 pursuant to the procedures of the State Board of H e a l t h . " 4 21 CR-10-1711 tablets, containing a combination of oxycodone and acetaminophen). Therefore, that her under the circumstances W i l l i a m s ' s p o s s e s s i o n of possession home of constituted jeopardy whether the a powder the purposes. same As i n each case, facts in this i n the methamphetamine act or in transaction find shed the for and mobile double- caution that conduct same under B l o c k b u r g e r facts "meth o i l " c a s e , we i n T o w n s e n d , h o w e v e r , we defendant's transaction the in this same a c t offense § determined or case 13A-12-231(11) not. -- on act or the particular is limited to the the of the now trafficking possession determine of that 13A-1-8(b)(1), Ala. Code 1975, of more prosecuted f o r each more than such than of one a defendant offense, offense. one offense 22 whether methamphetamine fact conduct part i n methamphetamine a same of must were of commission convicted we "stashes" requires proof Section "[w]hen -- and h o l d i n g today that both transaction, in this 13A-12-212 our i s dependent the case. Having and constitutes may the under § does provides that establish defendant may not, i f under other the He each ...[o]ne may the be however, be offense is CR-10-1711 included Section in the other, 13A-1-9(a), as A l a . Code defined in Section 13A-1-9." 1975, p r o v i d e s : "(a) A d e f e n d a n t may be c o n v i c t e d o f a n o f f e n s e i n c l u d e d i n an o f f e n s e c h a r g e d . An o f f e n s e i s an i n c l u d e d one i f : "(1) I t i s e s t a b l i s h e d by p r o o f o f t h e same o r f e w e r t h a n a l l t h e f a c t s r e q u i r e d to e s t a b l i s h the commission of the offense charged; or "(2) I t c o n s i s t s o f an a t t e m p t o r s o l i c i t a t i o n t o commit t h e o f f e n s e c h a r g e d or t o commit a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e ; o r "(3) I t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y d e s i g n a t e d by s t a t u t e as a l e s s e r d e g r e e o f t h e o f f e n s e charged; or "(4) I t differs from the offense charged only i n the respect that a less serious i n j u r y or r i s k of i n j u r y to the same p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y o r p u b l i c i n t e r e s t s , or a l e s s e r k i n d of c u l p a b i l i t y s u f f i c e s t o e s t a b l i s h i t s commission." I n F o r d v . S t a t e , 612 S o . 2 d 1317 this Court (Ala. Crim. App. 1992), explained: " ' " [ T ] o be a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o f one c h a r g e d i n an i n d i c t m e n t , t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e must be one t h a t i s n e c e s s a r i l y included, i n a l l of i t s e s s e n t i a l elements, i n t h e g r e a t e r o f f e n s e c h a r g e d [ , ] " Payne v. S t a t e , 391 S o . 2 d 1 4 0 , 143 ( A l a . C r . A p p . ) , w r i t d e n i e d , 391 S o . 2 d 146 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) , ... u n l e s s i t i s s o d e c l a r e d b y s t a t u t e . ' 23 CR-10-1711 " J a m e s v . S t a t e , 549 So. 2d 5 6 2 , 564 ( A l a . Cr. App. 1989). 'Whether a crime constitutes a lesser-included offense i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d on a case-by-case basis.' A u c o i n v . S t a t e , 548 So. 2d 1053, 1057 ( A l a . C r . App.1 989). 'In determining w h e t h e r one o f f e n s e i s a l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of the c h a r g e d o f f e n s e , the p o t e n t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e two o f f e n s e s m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d n o t o n l y i n t h e a b s t r a c t terms of the d e f i n i n g s t a t u t e s but must a l s o ... i n l i g h t of the p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s of each case.' I n g r a m v . S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 8 3 5 , 837 (Ala. C r . App. 1990) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e J o r d a n , 486 So. 2d 485, 488 (Ala. 1986); emphasis i n o r i g i n a l ) . See a l s o F a r m e r v . S t a t e , 565 So. 2d 1238 ( A l a . Cr. App. 19 9 0 ) . " 612 So. those 2d at facts 1318. alleged elements of the not the at the J o h n s o n v. State, one 922 p e r s o n who brings into constructive thereof, optical at trial 2d state, 137, or possession who of, or -- statutory indictment the are are factual the basis factors included in 143 ( A l a . C r i m . App. -¬ that another." 2005). manufactures, d e l i v e r s , i s knowingly 28 grams in actual or more or of m i x t u r e c o n t a i n i n g methamphetamine, i t s isomers, is guilty "the case is knowingly s e l l s , this Thus, each f a c t s a l l e g e d i n an offense So. m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e o r any salts, and guilty-plea colloquy whether or indictment. presented determine "Any " p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s " of i n the offenses evidence provided The or salt its optical of a f e l o n y , w h i c h f e l o n y s h a l l be 24 of isomers known as CR-10-1711 'trafficking Code 1975. knowingly or more mixture and but less such 500 controlled Williams "did p o s s e s s i o n 28 g r a m s o f methamphetamine a controlled ( R e c o r d on D i r e c t 13A-12-212(a)(1), commits substance or a substance, possession took Appeal A l a . Code place o f 13A-12-231 of the "RDA," C. 2 0 . ) that of unlawful possession the crime 1975, p r o v i d e s of a i f ... [ e ] x c e p t a s o t h e r w i s e authorized, substance enumerated i n Schedules I As n o t e d above, methamphetamine i s a S c h e d u l e I I substance. Code (Department that Williams See R e g u l a t i o n 4 2 0 - 7 - 2 , A l a . A d m i n . of Public Health). " d i d unlawfully controlled substance 13A-12-212 o f t h e Code dignity grams or constructive he p o s s e s s e s a c o n t r o l l e d t h r o u g h V." that o f Alabama, a g a i n s t t h e peace and d i g n i t y Section controlled charged methamphetamine, actual 13A-12-231(11), A l a . or constructive than of Alabama." person § t o September 30, 1988, i n v i o l a t i o n t h e Code "[a] indictment containing that State The have i n a c t u a l subsequent of i n methamphetamine.'" contrary The i n d i c t m e n t possess METHAMPHETAMINE, t o and i n v i o l a t i o n of Alabama, of the State of Alabama." 25 charged against a of Section t h e peace and (RDA, C. 1 6 . ) CR-10-1711 Based facts on t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s as alleged in the of the offenses indictments, and t h e possession of methamphetamine i s a l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e of t r a f f i c k i n g i n methamphetamine trafficking in offense this case. The commission the indictment. committed the committed the Fletcher, guilty In other words, trafficking of t r a f f i c k i n g i n cocaine delivers, or could without offense. 718 S o . 2 d 1 1 3 2 , 1 1 3 6 n.5 o f f e n s e as a l l e g e d Williams offense possession manufactures, See, e.g., ( A l a . 1998) i f h e : (1) ' k n o w i n g l y brings into this state, grams more cocaine.' guilty he A l a . Code or 1975, § of any 1975, § a controlled substance' 13A-12-212(a)(1). trafficking every or i s '28 containing A person Thus, (e.g., cocaine). f o r the j u r y is element i n cocaine -- i t had t o f i n d of the l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d offense 26 Ala. to return a v e r d i c t a g a i n s t F l e t c h e r on t h e o f f e n s e o f t h e h i g h e r -- is sells, o f , ' (2) mixture 13A-12-231(2). parte of the unlawful possession of a c o n t r o l l e d substance i f 'possesses Code cocaine Ex having ("A p e r s o n i n a c t u a l or c o n s t r u c t i v e possession of not have also knowingly or the as a l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t n e c e s s a r i l y i n c l u d e d a l l the elements of the possession in of degree the existence of -- t h e u n l a w f u l CR-10-1711 p o s s e s s i o n o f a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e . " ) ; and Ex p a r t e Hubbard, 562 S o . 2 d 5 8 3 , 584 lesser included "[b]oth the offense require trafficking ( A l a . 1989) ( " P o s s e s s i o n o f c a n n a b i s of t r a f f i c k i n g proof of the same i n cannabis" elements, i s a because except that a l s o r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f an a d d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t : defendant was i n possession o f more than 2.2 that pounds of cannabis."). B e c a u s e W i l l i a m s was c o n v i c t e d o f b o t h and a lesser a greater offense offense included within the greater offense, her convictions f o r both i n possession of principles. Williams's trafficking methamphetamine Therefore, Rule 32 remedy when a d e f e n d a n t lesser-included sentence v. 57 2d to this So. 2d 178 ( A l a . Crim. ( A l a .Crim. claim. ( A l a .Crim. App. 2009); ( A l a . Crim. App. 2004) 27 i n denying The proper a g r e a t e r and a the conviction and t h e See, e.g, G h o l s t o n App. App. 2010); 2 d 729 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; 988 erred i s convicted of both offense i s to vacate 53 S o . 3 d 981 57 S o . 3 d 807 So. as and double-jeopardy court f o rthe lesser-included offense. State, State, violate the c i r c u i t petition methamphetamine 2010); Lewis Holloway Renney v. State, v. S t a t e , and Young v. S t a t e , v. 971 892 S o . ( a l lvacating convictions of CR-10-1711 lesser-included offenses unconstitutionally convicted included offenses). sentence for possession where of Accordingly, the both defendants greater Williams's and were lesser- conviction o f m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e m u s t be and vacated. 5 We n o t e t h a t J u d g e W e l c h ' s d i s s e n t i n P a t r i c k v . S t a t e , [Ms. C R - 0 9 - 1 5 7 8 , M a r c h 2 5 , 2 0 1 1 ] So. 3 d (Ala. Crim. App. 2 0 1 1 ) , on w h i c h t h e d i s s e n t h e r e r e l i e s , i s i n a p p o s i t e . I n P a t r i c k , t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s summary d i s m i s s a l o f P a t r i c k ' s R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t P a t r i c k had e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g o p e r a t e d to a v o i d the p r e c l u s i v e e f f e c t of the time bar i n Rule 32.2(c). Judge Welch d i s s e n t e d , noting that although Patrick had p l e a d e d f a c t s i n h i s p e t i t i o n t h a t , i f t r u e , would e n t i t l e him t o e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g , P a t r i c k had not p r o v e n t h a t those f a c t s w e r e t r u e and, t h u s , J u d g e W e l c h a r g u e d , t h e c a s e s h o u l d be r e m a n d e d f o r P a t r i c k t o be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o v e t h e facts underlying his assertion that equitable t o l l i n g should apply to h i s p e t i t i o n . T h i s case, however, does not i n v o l v e t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r W i l l i a m s has p r o p e r l y p r o v e n f a c t s t o a v o i d one o f t h e p r e c l u s i o n s i n R u l e 3 2 . 2 . As n o t e d a b o v e , as a matter of law, Williams's double-jeopardy claim is not precluded. Moreover, c o n t r a r y to the contention in the d i s s e n t , i t u n n e c e s s a r y t o remand t h i s case t o a l l o w W i l l i a m s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r o v e h e r d o u b l e - j e o p a r d y c l a i m because the f a c t s w a r r a n t i n g r e l i e f on t h a t c l a i m a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . The o n l y d i s p u t e between the p a r t i e s i s the proper a p p l i c a t i o n of the law t o those u n d i s p u t e d f a c t s . Thus, our h o l d i n g i s not b a s e d on W i l l i a m s ' s m e r e a l l e g a t i o n s i n h e r p e t i t i o n , b u t on the undisputed evidence presented at Williams's t r i a l , of w h i c h t h i s C o u r t h a s t a k e n j u d i c i a l n o t i c e , s e e s u p r a n o t e 1, a n d on w h i c h b o t h W i l l i a m s a n d t h e S t a t e r e l y i n m a k i n g t h e i r arguments. Therefore, as b o t h t h i s C o u r t and t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h a v e done n u m e r o u s t i m e s i n t h e p a s t when t h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r on i t s f a c e t h a t a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f , we g r a n t t h a t r e l i e f , r a t h e r t h a n w a s t e s c a r c e j u d i c i a l r e s o u r c e s t o remand f o r W i l l i a m s t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t has a l r e a d y been p r e s e n t e d t o a j u r y and t h a t i s 5 28 CR-10-1711 Based circuit on court the foregoing, we to grant Williams's remand this petition as case f o r the i t relates to her c o n v i c t i o n f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f methamphetamine and t o v a c a t e a l r e a d y b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t b y way o f j u d i c i a l n o t i c e . See Ex p a r t e A.D.R., 690 S o . 2 d 1208 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) , on r e m a n d , 690 S o . 2 d 1210 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1997) (ordering the granting of relief on a p p e a l f r o m t h e s u m m a r y d i s m i s s a l o f a R u l e 32 petition where the record clearly established that the p e t i t i o n e r was e n t i t l e d t o r e l i e f ) ; a n d A n d r e w s v . S t a t e , 78 So. 3d 1012 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 1 1 ) ( W e l c h , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) ( i t i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o r e m a n d f o r t h e R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n e r t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o prove a c l a i m where t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e c l a i m -- t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s g u i l t y p l e a was i n v o l u n t a r y - - e n t i t l e d t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f ; t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d r e v e r s e t h e summary d i s m i s s a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n and o r d e r r e l i e f ) . See a l s o R a g l a n d v . S t a t e , 40 S o . 3d 763 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ) ; B a r r v . S t a t e , 4 S o . 3d 578 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 8 ) ; N i c k e n s v . S t a t e , 981 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 5 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; C a s t e e l v . S t a t e , 976 S o . 2 d 505 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) ; L a w r e n c e v . S t a t e , 953 S o . 2 d 431 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; W i l s o n v . S t a t e , 943 S o . 2 d 803 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; W a t k i n s v . S t a t e , 941 S o . 2 d 343 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) ; P e a k e v . S t a t e , 931 S o . 2 d 783 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ; M u r r a y v. S t a t e , 922 S o . 2 d 971 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2005); J o h n s o n v . S t a t e , 919 S o . 2 d 1 2 3 3 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2005); W i l l i a m s v . S t a t e , 920 S o . 2 d 590 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2005); B r o w n i n g v . S t a t e , 901 S o . 2 d 757 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 5 ) ; K i n g v . S t a t e , 902 S o . 2 d 736 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ; T o l i v e r v . State, 881 S o . 2 d 1 07 0 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 3 ) ; R e e v e s v . State, 874 S o . 2 d 1167 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2 0 0 2 ) ; B a i l e y v. S t a t e , 848 S o . 2 d 274 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ) ; a n d M o o r e v . S t a t e , 814 S o . 2 d 308 ( A l a . C r i m . A p p . 2 0 0 1 ) ( a l l r e v e r s i n g t h e s u m m a r y d i s m i s s a l o f a R u l e 32 p e t i t i o n a n d o r d e r i n g t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n e r r e l i e f where t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r was e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e l i e f sought). 29 CR-10-1711 the possession c o n v i c t i o n and r e s u l t i n g shall w i t h i n 42 days o f t h e d a t e be f i l e d REMANDED WITH sentence. of this Due return opinion. DIRECTIONS. Welch, Burke, and J o i n e r , J J . , concur. Windom, P . J . , concurs i n p a r t and d i s s e n t s i n p a r t , w i t h o p i n i o n . 30 CR-10-1711 WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and dissenting in part. I agree Williams's with the majority's actual-innocence disposition claim. However, 25, 2011] So. 3d Patricia f o r the s t a t e d i n Judge W e l c h ' s d i s s e n t i n P a t r i c k v. 0 9 - 1 5 7 8 , Mar. of reasons State, , [Ms. CR- (Ala. Crim. App. 2011), I r e s p e c t f u l l y disagree w i t h the m a j o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n to direct the circuit convictions summarily at the on the provides that pleading and circuit Williams's Rule pleadings. Rule petitioner proving by the [may] of petitioner "assertions set entitle The Williams's circuit not the to not had met her evidence relief." forth in Ala. R. Crim. P., 32.3, Ala. R. Crim. P., burden of shall have of the the evidence [Williams] to Williams's the o p p o r t u n i t y to burden of necessary In other words, majority's [relief], 31 ... to by they a entitle although opinion, on present "proving facts the Because petition the the court 32, summarily dismissed has preponderance of to e n t i t l e the p e t i t i o n e r to r e l i e f . " court and one a preponderance t h e p l e a d i n g s , W i l l i a m s has evidence vacate stage. "[t]he facts necessary to pleading dismissed petition the court i f are the true, merely CR-10-1711 allegations." Patrick, So. 3d at (Welch, J., dissenting). Because W i l l i a m s ' s cause the circuit has n o t p r e s e n t e d any e v i d e n c e I do court's action i s before not believe order the that circuit i n support to vacate In o t h e r words, t h i s grant based Instead, this and remand for i t hold submissions, an of her a Rule 32 to the c i r c u i t evidentiary thus, providing one of hearing or accept R. Crim. P. Court to summarily pleadings. 3 2 . 2 , A l a . R. court with she Williams's petitioner's Crim. P., instructions evidentiary W i l l i a m s w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e i n an a t t e m p t t o p r o v e h e r c l a i m . Ala. review allegation, Court should not Court should apply Rule t h e cause to i t i s appropriate for this court on Court on h e r p l e a d i n g s a n d b e c a u s e convictions. relief this Therefore, I respectfully 32 Rule dissent. 32.9,

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.