Anthony Mitchell Money v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/28/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 CR-11-0468 Anthony M i t c h e l l Money v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Henry C i r c u i t Court (CC 09-52) BURKE, J u d g e . Anthony Mitchell Money was convicted of criminally n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e , a v i o l a t i o n o f § 13A-6-4, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , and was s e n t e n c e d County j a i l . t o one y e a r of hard l a b o r i n t h e Henry He was a l s o o r d e r e d t o p a y a $ 7 5 0 f i n e , a $100 CR-11-0468 assessment c o s t s , and to the crime restitution. victims compensation This appeal fund, follows. A d e t a i l e d r e c i t a t i o n of the f a c t s i s unnecessary d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l . However, we 1 court to the note t h a t t h i s case a r o s e o u t o f an i n c i d e n t t h a t o c c u r r e d on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r 2 0 0 6 , when Money and h i s g i r l f r i e n d , argument w h i l e riding became p h y s i c a l and, by was an leading up to T h e r e were no the point of d e s p i t e h i s attempts Curry, killed to the was killed. C u r r y was lying in and t h e n f a i l e d t o remove h e r the p a t h of oncoming t r a f f i c . road he The S t a t e c l a i m e d t h a t Money r e n d e r e d Curry dazed or unconscious i n the Curry a d i s p u t e as t o why the middle of the road. s t r u c k and eyewitnesses where an altercation A few moments l a t e r , l y i n g i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e r o a d , was A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e was down The a t some p o i n t , Money p u l l e d o v e r , and oncoming v e h i c l e . events Mary C u r r y , got i n t o i n Money's v e h i c l e . and C u r r y g o t o u t o f t h e v e h i c l e . who 17, her from Money c l a i m e d t h a t C u r r y l a y own volition and refused to move t o remove h e r . Money r a i s e s f i v e a r g u m e n t s on a p p e a l . However, b e c a u s e we a r e r e v e r s i n g t h e c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on Money's argument r e l a t i n g t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , we need not address the r e m a i n i n g arguments. 1 2 CR-11-0468 Money was felony. See convicted i n d i c t e d f o r r e c k l e s s manslaughter, a Class § of 13A-6-3, the A l a . Code lesser-included 1975. However, offense n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e , a C l a s s A misdemeanor. points out t h a t the i n c i d e n t g i v i n g r i s e occurred on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r indicted until the statute months. See provided, § 15-3-2, was criminally On a p p e a l , Money to h i s prosecution 17, 2006, and t h a t June 8, 2009. of l i m i t a t i o n s of he he was not He a l s o c o r r e c t l y s t a t e s f o r a misdemeanor A l a . Code B offense 1975("Unless that i s 12 otherwise the p r o s e c u t i o n o f a l l misdemeanors b e f o r e a c i r c u i t o r d i s t r i c t c o u r t must be commenced w i t h i n 12 months a f t e r t h e commission of the o f f e n s e . " ) court Therefore, d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n he s a y s , the trial t o t r y and c o n v i c t him f o r c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t homicide because the p r o s e c u t i o n d i d not commence w i t h i n t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s . Money f i r s t r a i s e d t h i s i s s u e i n h i s p o s t t r i a l Motion to Dismiss." trial looked court at found to (C. 7 0 - 7 2 . ) that I n denying that motion, the " i t i s the charged determine i f "Instanter the offense applicable that i s statute l i m i t a t i o n s had r u n , not the l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e that the D e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d o f " (C. 7 5 ) , c i t i n g Rock v. S t a t e , 3 of 558 CR-11-0468 So. 2d 967 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . Accordingly, the t r i a l c o u r t h e l d t h a t b e c a u s e Money was i n d i c t e d f o r a f e l o n y , f o r w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s t h r e e y e a r s , s e e § 15-3-1, Ala. Code 1975, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a p p l i c a b l e time p e r i o d . and argued order that On a p p e a l , i t i s the charged commenced within the t h e S t a t e a l s o c i t e d Rock offense that i s used i n t o determine the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . In h i s b r i e f So. was 2d 1145 addressed on a p p e a l , ( A l a . Crim. a similar Money c i t e s App. situation. 1986), Hall v. S t a t e , i n which this In H a l l , 497 Court the appellant was i n d i c t e d f o r f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse b u t was c o n v i c t e d o f a lesser-included offense This Court t h a t , a t t h e t i m e , was a m i s d e m e a n o r . held: "A p e r s o n c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f a l e s s e r o f f e n s e , upon p r o s e c u t i o n f o r a g r e a t e r offense, w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e , commenced a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has r u n on t h e l e s s e r offense. See g e n e r a l l y 47 A.L.R. 2d 887. "'The r u l e p r o v i d i n g t h a t e v e r y l e s s e r i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e one c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a p p l i e s a n d has reference only t o every actionable offense and n o t t h e o f f e n s e s w h i c h upon t h e f a c e o f the p r o c e e d i n g s a r e b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s , the operation of which rendered the court without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y and d e t e r m i n e t h e s o - c a l l e d l e s s e r offenses.'" 4 CR-11-0468 Hall, 497 So. 2d, App. 376, 160 So. the trial him for at 1148, 727 quoting (1935). S p e a r s v. Therefore, according c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n the misdemeanor offense h o m i c i d e , e v e n t h o u g h he was of State, 26 t o Money, t o t r y and criminally i n d i c t e d f o r the Ala. convict negligent felony offense of r e c k l e s s manslaughter. Thus, i t appears that Spears. We indicted f o r a f e l o n y may Rock conflicts with must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p e r s o n who misdemeanor if the be convicted prosecution of for the Hall and i s properly a lesser-included felony was not commenced u n t i l a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l i c a b l e t o the and m i s d e m e a n o r has the expired. application r e v i e w e d by this So. 287 2d 285, of C o u r t de Cases i n v o l v i n g i s s u e s the law novo. to See of law facts are Hamilton, 970 undisputed Ex parte ( A l a . 2006). A c l o s e r e a d i n g o f Rock v. S t a t e r e v e a l s t h a t t h e p o r t i o n of t h a t o p i n i o n the unnecessary the to trial court holding relied of the on was case. dicta In and was Rock, the was a p p e l l a n t was i n d i c t e d for f i r s t - d e g r e e sexual abuse b u t convicted the second-degree sexual of abuse, a lesser-included Class A offense misdemeanor. 5 of However, he was not CR-11-0468 i n d i c t e d w i t h i n 12 months o f t h e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t . the appellant expired argued for his conviction, offense limitations appellant look had was However, Court we no the misdemeanor this that that statute charge. stated at to that prior of." cases were had affirming the In determine appeal, limitations " [ i ] t i s the run, not the l e s s e r convicted of On i f the charged statute of included that 558 Rock offense 2d, at 970. support of that cited in So. p r o p o s i t i o n , and t h e C o u r t went on t o n o t e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f limitations charge because Section is had not e x p i r e d t h e v i c t i m was 15-3-5(a)(4), no l i m i t a t i o n commenced f o r ... physical language charged i n Rock offense limitations because was there underlying was less than of time w i t h i n which [a]ny sex o f f e n s e injury or years o f age. that "[t]here a prosecution must be i n v o l v i n g a v i c t i m under death...." determine unnecessary no misdemeanor of whether i t i n v o l v e s s t a t i n g that to 16 A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s 16 y e a r s o f age, r e g a r d l e s s serious f o r the appellant's statute a court the to the Accordingly, i s to look applicable decision of l i m i t a t i o n s the to the statute i n the on t h e t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s misdemeanor c h a r g e . 6 force or of case offense CR-11-0468 However, present for the facts of As noted, the case. Hall are appellant f i r s t - d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse b u t was included This offense Court h e l d of more attempted similar i n H a l l was to the indicted c o n v i c t e d of the l e s s e r - first-degree sexual abuse. 2 that " t h e 12 month s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had r u n on t h e offense o f a t t e m p t e d s e x u a l abuse i n t h e first degree because the commission of the acts c o n s t i t u t i n g t h i s o f f e n s e o c c u r r e d d u r i n g t h e summer of 1983[ ]. A p e r s o n c a n n o t be c o n v i c t e d o f a l e s s e r o f f e n s e , upon p r o s e c u t i o n f o r a g r e a t e r offense, w h i c h i n c l u d e s t h e l e s s e r o f f e n s e , commenced a f t e r t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s has r u n on t h e l e s s e r offense." 3 Id. at 1148. The (1935). with H a l l d e c i s i o n a l s o c i t e d S p e a r s v. S t a t e , 160 In Spears, intent "assault and to the a p p e l l a n t was murder," battery, s i m i l a r i t y to t h i s a a felony, indicted for but misdemeanor." c a s e and to H a l l , the So. 727 "assault was convicted of Id. at In 728. a p p e l l a n t was not A l t h o u g h t h e v i c t i m i n H a l l was l e s s t h a n 16 y e a r s o f age, t h e c h a r g e d c o n d u c t i n t h a t c a s e o c c u r r e d b e f o r e J a n u a r y 7, 1985, t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f § 1 5 - 3 - 5 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, which e l i m i n a t e d the s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r such o f f e n s e s . A c c o r d i n g l y , a t t h e t i m e t h e a p p e l l a n t i n H a l l was c o n v i c t e d , the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s f o r attempted f i r s t d e g r e e s e x u a l abuse o f a m i n o r was 12 months. 2 3 T h e a p p e l l a n t was not indicted until April 7 1985. CR-11-0468 indicted until occurred. conviction The almost Court two y e a r s after of Appeals the relevant o f Alabama f o r t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d misdemeanor conduct reversed the offense and held: "By t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y , s u p r a , t h e a c c u s e d a c q u i t t e d of the offense of a s s a u l t with i n t e n t was t o m u r d e r ; a n d , as i t a f f i r m a t i v e l y a p p e a r s , w i t h o u t d i s p u t e , t h a t t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s h a d r u n as to the o t h e r o f f e n s e s o r d i n a r i l y i n c l u d e d under t h e charge i n the i n d i c t m e n t , the charge o f a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o m u r d e r was t h e o n l y a c t i o n a b l e o f f e n s e i n this indictment. Under t h i s s t a t u s t h e c o u r t was wrong i n c h a r g i n g t h e j u r y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h i s i n d i c t m e n t i n c l u d e d a l s o t h e charges o f a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y a n d a s s a u l t , a n d t h a t t h e j u r y w o u l d be warranted i n f i n d i n g him g u i l t y o f a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y , o r an a s s a u l t . The r u l e p r o v i d i n g t h a t e v e r y l e s s e r o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d e d i n t h e one c h a r g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t a p p l i e s and has r e f e r e n c e o n l y t o e v e r y a c t i o n a b l e o f f e n s e and n o t t h e o f f e n s e s which upon t h e f a c e o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a r e b a r r e d b y t h e statute of l i m i t a t i o n s , the operation of which r e n d e r e d t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o t r y and determine the s o - c a l l e d l e s s e r offenses. In other w o r d s , t h e m i s d e m e a n o r o f w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t was c o n v i c t e d was n o t e m b r a c e d i n t h e m a j o r c h a r g e o f a s s a u l t w i t h i n t e n t t o murder. N o r c o u l d i t have b e e n as t h e r u n n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s had r e n d e r e d t h e c h a r g e u n a c t i o n a b l e . The t i m e when an o f f e n s e was c o m m i t t e d n e e d n o t be a l l e g e d i n t h e i n d i c t m e n t , b u t i t i s e s s e n t i a l i t must be p r o v e d on t h e t r i a l t h a t i t was c o m m i t t e d w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d , w h i c h i s p r e s c r i b e d as a b a r a g a i n s t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n for i t . I f t h i s i s n o t done, t h e p r o s e c u t i o n f a i l s . Why? B e c a u s e , when t h e p e r i o d o f l i m i t a t i o n e l a p s e d , t h e a c t c e a s e d t o be a p u n i s h a b l e o f f e n s e . No c o u r t was t h e n a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o n o u n c e s e n t e n c e a g a i n s t t h e p e r s o n who c o m m i t t e d i t . " 8 CR-11-0468 S p e a r s , 160 So. a t 728. Thus, a t r i a l c o u r t does n o t have t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to adjudicate a misdemeanor o f f e n s e unless the defendant i s i n d i c t e d , b o u n d o v e r , o r a w a r r a n t f o r h i s o r h e r a r r e s t has b e e n i s s u e d w i t h i n 12 months o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e o f f e n s e . H a l l and S p e a r s embrace t h i s p r i n c i p l e . extent that the language S p e a r s on t h i s Section "circuit all i n Rock i s s u e , i t i s hereby 12-11-30(2), Accordingly, i s contrary prosecutions A l a . Code and of to Hall and disavowed. 1975, provides c o u r t s h a l l have e x c l u s i v e o r i g i n a l felony to the that a j u r i s d i c t i o n of misdemeanor or ordinance v i o l a t i o n s which are l e s s e r i n c l u d e d offenses w i t h i n a f e l o n y charge or which charge." "the However, prosecution district arise from § 15-3-2, A l a . Code of a l l misdemeanors 1975, p r o v i d e s meaning issuing i n c i d e n t as of felony before a circuit that or a f t e r the F u r t h e r m o r e , § 15-3-7, A l a . Code t h a t " [ a ] p r o s e c u t i o n may be commenced w i t h i n of a a 1975, p r o v i d e s c o u r t must be commenced w i t h i n 12 months commission of the o f f e n s e . " the t h e same [§ 15-3-2] warrant or by by finding binding an over indictment, the the offender." I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e c o n d u c t g i v i n g r i s e t o Money's 9 CR-11-0468 prosecution occurred on o r a b o u t O c t o b e r Money was n o t i n d i c t e d u n t i l 17, 2006, a n d t h a t June 8, 2009. A d d i t i o n a l l y , we n o t e t h a t a w a r r a n t f o r h i s a r r e s t was n o t i s s u e d u n t i l 9, 2009. Therefore, commence u n t i l the prosecution June the o f Money's c a s e d i d n o t 8, 2009, more t h a n charged conduct occurred. June two y e a r s B a s e d on t h o s e a f t e r the facts, as w e l l as c a s e s a n d s t a t u t e s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e charge of c r i m i n a l l y n e g l i g e n t h o m i c i d e was n o t e m b r a c e d i n the g r e a t e r charge of r e c k l e s s manslaughter. trial Accordingly, the c o u r t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t Money f o r criminally negligent homicide. To h o l d otherwise would be c o n t r a r y t o t h e A l a b a m a Code. In Money i t s order, objected the t r i a l to the j u r y court charge also on noted that, criminally while negligent h o m i c i d e , he d i d n o t s t a t e s p e c i f i c g r o u n d s f o r h i s o b j e c t i o n . (C. 74.) questions Ordinarily, "'[r]eview and i s s u e s p r o p e r l y on a p p e a l i s restricted to and t i m e l y r a i s e d a t t r i a l . ' " Newsome v. S t a t e , 570 So. 2d 703, 717 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1989) . However, this Court r a i s e d i n the present has h e l d that claims c a s e c a n be r a i s e d on 10 such as t h e one appeal. CR-11-0468 " A l t h o u g h A l a b a m a l a w i s n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r on t h e question whether a court presiding over a p r o s e c u t i o n b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i s w i t h o u t ' j u r i s d i c t i o n , ' a s y n t h e s i s of the Alabama cases i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s d e f e c t must be c o n s i d e r e d ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l , ' i n t h e s e n s e t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t i s not a u t h o r i z e d t o pronounce the accused g u i l t y of the t i m e - b a r r e d offense. Notwithstanding the f a c t t h a t i n c e r t a i n s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s where t h e b a r o f t h e s t a t u t e may be e x p r e s s l y w a i v e d when i t does n o t o p e r a t e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s f a v o r , see S p a z i a n o v. F l o r i d a , 468 U.S. 447, 104 S.Ct. 3154, 82 L.Ed.2d 340 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ; H a l l v. S t a t e , 497 So. 2d 1145 ( A l a . C r . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , u n d e r o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s the bar of the s t a t u t e i s not w a i v e d by a mere f a i l u r e t o a s s e r t i t , and the s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s may be p r o p e r l y a s s e r t e d on appeal or i n a p e t i t i o n f o r p o s t - c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f . Cox v. State, 1991)(emphasis before this So. 2d added). t h i s Court f o r Cox in 585 182, Therefore, 193 (Ala. Crim. this issue is where t h e trial court the offense, in without a jurisdiction. trial court I n Cox, would be one l a c k e d the c o n v i c t a defendant of a t i m e - b a r r e d which properly review. a l s o d i s t i n g u i s h e d i s s u e s s u c h as case, App. presented a u t h o r i t y to from instances subject-matter t h i s Court held: " I n s t e a d o f a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had no subject-matter jurisdiction over the conspiracy p r o s e c u t i o n , i t i s more a c c u r a t e t o s t a t e t h a t , once t h e c o u r t was shown t h a t t h e p r o s e c u t i o n was b a r r e d by t h e s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s , t h e c o u r t had no ' j u r i s d i c t i o n to t r y the q u e s t i o n of the g u i l t or innocence of the accused.'" S e r f a s s v. United 11 CR-11-0468 S t a t e s , 420 U.S. [377] a t 391, 95 S.Ct. ( q u o t i n g K e p n e r v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 195 U.S. 24 S.Ct. 797, 806, 49 L.Ed. 114 (1904)). Cox v. S t a t e , 585 So. 2d 182, 193-94 at 1064, 100, 133, ( A l a . C r i m . App. T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Ex p a r t e Seymour, 946 538 in So. 2d 536, ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) , i n w h i c h t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t deciding whether a court's subject-matter trial try 1991). c o u r t had the jurisdiction, with we subject-matter "properly hold which" that, jurisdiction challenges we t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and offense Accordingly, claim ask trial only whether the s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y to the defendant although the over the the was charged. trial court had offenses Money was c h a r g e d w i t h , i t d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o c o n v i c t him the t i m e - b a r r e d misdemeanor. Therefore, reversed. of Money's conviction A d d i t i o n a l l y , we note is that void the and jury's must be verdict c o n v i c t i n g Money o f t h e l e s s e r - i n c l u d e d o f f e n s e o p e r a t e s as implicit Ex parte trial court acquittal Gillentine, 980 B a s e d on is reversed, So. the and REVERSED AND of the greater 2d 966, 972 foregoing, the offense. ( A l a . 2007). judgment of the a judgment i s r e n d e r e d JUDGMENT RENDERED. 12 See an i n f a v o r o f Money. CR-11-0468 Welch, Kellum, concurs i n the and Joiner, result. 13 J J . , concur. Windom, P.J.,

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.