Ex parte Steven Wayne Huffman. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Steven Wayne Huffman v. State of Alabama) (Baldwin Circuit Court: CC-06-2150.60; Criminal Appeals : CR-09-1857). Writ Denied. No Opinion.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Rel: 05/20/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter. SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 _________________________ 1100800 _________________________ Ex parte Steven Wayne Huffman PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: Steven Wayne Huffman v. State of Alabama) (Baldwin Circuit Court, CC-06-2150.60; Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-1857) WOODALL, Justice. WRIT DENIED. NO OPINION. Stuart, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, Shaw, and Main, JJ., concur. Cobb, C.J., dissents. Wise, J., recuses herself.* *Justice Wise was a member of the Court Appeals when that court considered this case. of Criminal 1100800 COBB, Chief Justice (dissenting). I respectfully Steven dissent. Wayne Huffman was convicted of trafficking in controlled substances, a violation of § 13A-12-231(11), Ala. Code 1975, and was sentenced to 50 years' imprisonment upon application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, § 13A 5 9, Ala. Code 1975, and the sentenceenhancement provisions of § 13A-12-231(13), Ala. Code 1975 (possession of a firearm during the trafficking offense). Huffman subsequently attacked his conviction and sentence by means of a postconviction challenge by way of a Rule 32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition. The trial court dismissed that challenge, and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Although I agree with the majority that the petition is due to be denied as to the other issues raised, I believe that Huffman has raised an issue of probable merit with respect to the application of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 the principles set out in U.S. 466 (2000), to the enhancement of his sentence upon application of § 13A-12231(13). Specifically, Huffman's petition for certiorari review states: 2 1100800 "Affirming the trial court's summary disposition, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that: "'Because possession of a firearm during trafficking is an element of the offense, no notice was required, nor was the sentence imposed in violation of the principles of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).' "Attachment at 18. "This Court has not addressed the precise issue of whether the firearm enhancement of § 13A-12231(13) requires pretrial notice. However, the decision of the court below is in direct conflict with prior decision[s], those of this Court, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court on similar points of law. Apprendi unequivocally holds that the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments require any fact other than prior conviction that increases the maximum penalty for a crime must be charged in the indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 466." (Petition at 12; emphasis supplied.) I believe that this Court should grant the petition as to this issue and consider its merits. Accordingly, I dissent. 3
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.
