Benjamin Carter Mays v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 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, 2012-2013 CR-11-1531 Benjamin C a r t e r Mays v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t Court (CC-11-1063) WINDOM, P r e s i d i n g Judge. B e n j a m i n C a r t e r Mays a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n degree escape, resulting see § sentence 13A-10-32, o f 17 evidence presented a t t r i a l f o r second- A l a . Code 1975, a n d h i s i n prison. Because the was i n s u f f i c i e n t to sustain the years CR-11-1531 conviction, t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e s Mays's c o n v i c t i o n a judgment On f o r him. May District 19, Court sentenced to s e n t e n c e was jail 2011, he Mays pleaded guilty t o p o s s e s s i o n of drug year split, i n the arrested on new by charges, the and, moved t o r e v o k e Mays's p r o b a t i o n . Jackson p a r a p h e r n a l i a and Jackson and Mays was i n the County jail. was That o r d e r e d t o s e r v e 97 d a y s i n p l a c e d on p r o b a t i o n f o r 24 months. was Department 2011, one and was 1 and r e n d e r s Jackson on July On J u l y 4, County Sheriff's 2011, the S t a t e 5, On A u g u s t 19, 2011, Mays's p r o b a t i o n was r e v o k e d and he was " p l a c e [ d ] on house a r r e s t " b y the d i s t r i c t court. (C. 90.) L a t e r t h a t day, Mays went t o t h e o f f i c e o f B r a n d o n a court-referral and c o m m u n i t y - c o r r e c t i o n s Brown, o f f i c e r w i t h the J a c k s o n C o u n t y Community P u n i s h m e n t and C o r r e c t i o n s P r o g r a m . Brown and Mays c o m p l e t e d t h e p a p e r w o r k r e l a t e d t o Mays's house arrest. To e f f e c t t h e house a r r e s t , Brown s e c u r e d a b r a c e l e t on Mays's 1 jail ankle and gave him the equipment that was to be M a y s r e c e i v e d 97 d a y s o f c r e d i t f o r t h e t i m e he s p e n t i n a w a i t i n g the d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s case. 2 CR-11-1531 installed i n h i s house. Brown n e v e r r e c e i v e d a t h a t t h e equipment had been notification installed. A f t e r r e p e a t e d u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t s t o c o n t a c t Mays a n d learning that t h e r e was no t e l e p h o n e h o u s e where Mays was s u p p o s e d w a r r a n t f o r Mays's a r r e s t . line installed i n the t o be r e s i d i n g , Brown s e c u r e d a Mays was a r r e s t e d on S e p t e m b e r 10, 2011. In December 2 0 1 1 , Mays was second-degree escape. The indicted f o r one count indictment s p e c i f i c a l l y of charged t h a t Mays h a d " e s c a p e [ d ] o r a t t e m p t [ e d ] t o e s c a p e f r o m a p e n a l facility, in t o - w i t : The J a c k s o n C o u n t y original.) Jail." Following a jury t r i a l , (C. 7) (emphasis Mays was f o u n d guilty and was s e n t e n c e d t o 17 y e a r s i n p r i s o n . On State's appeal, Mays argues, e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t for second-degree any evidence establishes escape that Specifically, he h a d e s c a p e d Mays that argues when i s not a other things, that the to support h i s c o n v i c t i o n because the S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t that from a the undisputed h i s probation " p l a c e d on h o u s e a r r e s t . " house among "penal (C. 90.) facility"; 3 was "penal facility." evidence revoked, he was A c c o r d i n g t o Mays, h i s therefore, the State CR-11-1531 presented The insufficient State, on the evidence other to sustain hand, argues his conviction. that Mays was in c o n s t r u c t i v e c u s t o d y o f t h e c o u n t y j a i l ; t h e r e f o r e , he was i n the custody of a "penal f a c i l i t y . " appeal depends facility" on whether a Thus, t h e outcome o f t h e house constitutes a "penal when a d e f e n d a n t was p l a c e d on h o u s e a r r e s t . C o u r t h o l d s t h a t i t does n o t ; t h e r e f o r e , i n s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n Mays's Initially, the S t a t e presented conviction. t h i s Court notes: " I n Ex p a r t e J.C., 882 So. 2d 274 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h e s t a n d a r d u s e d to r e v i e w a c l a i m t h a t the e v i d e n c e produced a t trial was legally insufficient to support a conviction: "'"'In determining the s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing c o u r t must a c c e p t as t r u e a l l e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d by t h e S t a t e , accord the State a l l l e g i t i m a t e inferences therefrom, and consider a l l evidence i n a l i g h t mos t favorable to the p r o s e c u t i o n . F a i r c l o t h v. S t a t e , 471 So. 2d 485 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So. 2d 493 (Ala. 1985). Powe v. S t a t e , 597 So. 2d 721, 724 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . It i s not the f u n c t i o n of t h i s Court to d e c i d e whether the e v i d e n c e i s b e l i e v a b l e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t , P e n n i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 421 4 This CR-11-1531 So. 2d 1361 ( A l a . Crim. App. 1982); r a t h e r , the f u n c t i o n of this Court is to determine whether there i s l e g a l e v i d e n c e from which a r a t i o n a l f i n d e r of fact could have, by fair inference, found the defendant g u i l t y beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt. D a v i s v. S t a t e , 598 So. 2d 1054 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1992) . Thus, '[t]he r o l e of a p p e l l a t e courts i s n o t t o s a y what t h e f a c t s a r e . [ T h e i r r o l e ] i s t o judge whether the evidence is legally s u f f i c i e n t to allow submission of an i s s u e f o r d e c i s i o n [ b y ] t h e jury. ' Ex p a r t e B a n k s t o n , 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 ( A l a . 1978) (emphasis o r i g i n a l ) . " "'Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2001) So. 2d 652, "882 So. 2d a t R e i d v. S t a t e , ___ C o u r t has 312 730 277." [Ms. CR-11-1148, Nov. ( A l a . C r i m . App. Regarding Tiller, 796 So. 2d 310, ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e W o o d a l l , 658 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) ) . ' " 2, 2012] So. 3d , 2012). statutory construction, the Alabama Supreme stated: " I n any c a s e i n v o l v i n g s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , our i n q u i r y b e g i n s w i t h the language of the s t a t u t e , and i f t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e i s p l a i n , o u r a n a l y s i s ends t h e r e . Ex p a r t e Moore, 880 So. 2d 1131, 1140 ( A l a . 2003) ('"'The c a r d i n a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t o d e t e r m i n e and g i v e effect to the intent of the legislature as m a n i f e s t e d i n the language of the statute.'"') 5 CR-11-1531 ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Weaver, 871 So. 2d 820, 823 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n Ex p a r t e S t a t e Dep't o f Revenue, 683 So. 2d 980, 983 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ) . This C o u r t i n 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, I n c . , 729 So. 2d 270, 275-76 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , e x p l a i n e d : "'In determining t h e meaning of a s t a t u t e , t h i s Court looks to the 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 b y t h e legislature. As we have s a i d : "'"'Words used in a s t a t u t e must be given their natural, plain, o r d i n a r y , 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 l a n g u a g e i s u s e d a c o u r t i s bound to interpret that language to 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 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 construction and the c learly e x p re sse d i ntent of the legislature must be given e f f e c t . ' " ' "729 So. 2d a t 275-76 ( q u o t i n g B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d v. N i e l s e n , 714 So. 2d 293, 296 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) , additional citations omitted). See a l s o 729 So. 2d a t 276 ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t t h e separation-of-powers d o c t r i n e r e q u i r e s a c o u r t t o use the p l a i n - m e a n i n g r u l e i n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e and t h a t ' o n l y i f t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l way t o i n t e r p r e t t h e words as s t a t e d w i l l [a c o u r t ] l o o k b e y o n d t h o s e words t o d e t e r m i n e legislative intent')." Ex p a r t e M c C o r m i c k , 932 So. 2d 124, 132 6 ( A l a . 2005) CR-11-1531 A p e r s o n commits t h e c r i m e o f s e c o n d - d e g r e e e s c a p e when "he e s c a p e s o r a t t e m p t s t o e s c a p e f r o m a p e n a l f a c i l i t y . " 1 3 A - 1 0 - 3 2 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. as "[a]ny security A "penal f a c i l i t y " correctional confinement of persons a r r e s t e d of a criminal offense, thereof 30(b)(3), 1314 of or any A l a . Code to the the state p e n i t e n t i a r y a n d any or not convicted city jail." See B l a c k ' s Law § 13A-10- Dictionary 396, ( 9 t h e d . 2009) ( d i r e c t i n g t h e r e a d e r s e e k i n g a d e f i n i t i o n "correctional and defining convicted institution" "prison" as criminals, Collegiate Dictionary as but the limited county 1975. for f o r , charged with or following security f a c i l i t i e s : branch i s defined institution including § a to the d e f i n i t i o n of "facility esp. of felons"); "prison" confinement f o r Merriam-Webster's 447 ( 1 1 t h e d . 2003) ( d e f i n i n g a f a c i l i t y " s o m e t h i n g ... t h a t i s built, i n s t a l l e d , or established to serve a p a r t i c u l a r purpose"). Accepting State every a l l the evidence legitimate inference as true from and that according the evidence, this C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any e v i d e n c e indicating defined that Mays was by s t a t u t e . confined i n a "penal facility" as S p e c i f i c a l l y , Mays's h o u s e , where he was 7 CR-11-1531 sentenced to serve h i s house correctional institution" arrest, and t h u s was was not a "security not a "penal facility" as d e f i n e d i n § 1 3 A - 1 0 - 3 0 ( b ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975. Mays's h o u s e was serve not "built, installed, p a r t i c u l a r purpose," 447, "of established Merriam-Webster's confinement D i c t i o n a r y 1314. or to Collegiate for convicted criminals," A c c o r d i n g l y , Mays's h o u s e was Dictionary Black's s u s t a i n h i s c o n v i c t i o n f o r second-degree The 1165, State, 1166 relying on ( A l a . C r i m . App. constructive custody of Sommerville v. evidence escape. State, 555 So. 1 9 8 9 ) , a r g u e s t h a t Mays was the county c o n v i c t i o n s h o u l d be a f f i r m e d . Law not a "penal f a c i l i t y , " and t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u f f i c i e n t to [the] jail; 2d i n the therefore, his U n l i k e Mays, who was p l a c e d on h o u s e a r r e s t , S o m m e r v i l l e was s e r v i n g a s e n t e n c e as a " t r u s t y " in a city j a i l and was the j a n i t o r i a l staff jail city a l l o w e d to leave the j a i l of the p o l i c e department. i s a penal f a c i l i t y . " jail, Sommerville c o n v i c t e d of second-degree Id. because he was escaped. escape. not 8 Id. "A city While working o u t s i d e of the t h a t the S t a t e p r e s e n t e d i n s u f f i c i e n t conviction t o work w i t h Id. Id. Sommerville On a p p e a l , he was argued evidence to s u s t a i n h i s i n custody when he escaped; CR-11-1531 i n s t e a d , he was o u t s i d e t h e j a i l Court rejected Court held Sommerville's that, although on work r e l e a s e . Sommerville This Specifically, argument. Id. this was not in actual c u s t o d y w h i l e on work r e l e a s e , he was i n c o n s t r u c t i v e c u s t o d y . Id. U n l i k e S o m m e r v i l l e , who was city jail and t h u s escaped s e r v i n g h i s sentence from been p l a c e d on h o u s e a r r e s t . a penal facility, i n the Mays h a d As d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , Mays's h o u s e was n o t a " s e c u r i t y c o r r e c t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n " and t h u s was n o t a "penal facility" 13A-10-30(b)(3), argument as that A l a . Code t h a t Mays was term 1975. i s without merit. evidence demonstrates that was a r r e s t and was n o t i n a " p e n a l f a c i l i t y " A l a . Code custody Because Mays 1975, defined in § A c c o r d i n g l y , the State's i n constructive facility" 10-30(b)(3), is the the of a "penal undisputed r e l e a s e d under house as d e f i n e d i n § 13A- circuit court d e n y i n g Mays's m o t i o n f o r a j u d g m e n t o f a c q u i t t a l . erred i n Therefore, t h i s C o u r t r e v e r s e s Mays's c o n v i c t i o n and r e n d e r s a j u d g m e n t in f a v o r o f Mays. REVERSED AND JUDGMENT RENDERED. Welch, Kellum, Burke, and J o i n e r , 9 J J . , concur.

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.