Adams v. State
Decision Date | 02 March 2001 |
Citation | 825 So.2d 239 |
Parties | Franklin Lane ADAMS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Franklin Lane Adams, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Jack W. Willis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Franklin Lane Adams appeals from the circuit court's summary denial of his Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for postconviction relief. The petition challenged Adams's July 25, 1997, conviction for robbery in the third degree and his sentence of 18 years in prison. No direct appeal was taken from that conviction. Adams had filed a prior Rule 32 petition; that petition was summarily denied on April 2, 1999. The petition at issue here was deemed filed on August 24, 2000.
Adams claimed in his petition that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose an 18-year sentence because, he says, that sentence exceeds the maximum 10-year sentence allowed by law for a conviction for robbery in the third degree, a Class C felony. See §§ 13A-8-43(b) and 13A-5-6(a)(3), Ala.Code 1975. Based on the circuit court's order, the relevant portion of which is set forth below, it appears that Adams was sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act ("HFOA") as a felony offender with one prior felony conviction. See § 13A-5-9(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. The circuit court summarily denied the petition by written order, ruling that the petition was procedurally barred as a successive petition (Rule 32.2(b)), as being beyond the two-year limitations period (Rule 32.2(c)), and because Adams's claim could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on appeal. (Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.P.) The circuit court also denied the claim on the merits. We quote below the pertinent part of the circuit court's discussion of the procedural preclusion grounds and the merits.
(C.R.4-5.)
Adams is not claiming that he did not get notice of the State's intent to invoke the HFOA or that he did not get notice of the prior convictions upon which the State intended to rely; rather, Adams's sole claim is that his sentence is illegal because he was not sentenced under the HFOA. There is no procedural bar to this claim. "`An illegal sentence may be challenged at any time.'" Johnson v. State, 722 So.2d 799, 800 (Ala.Crim.App.1998)(quoting J.N.J., Jr. v. State, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Broadnax
...825 So.2d 233Ex parte Donald BROADNAX ... (In re Donald Broadnax v. State) ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... November 2, 2001 ... Rehearing Denied December 28, 2001. 825 So.2d 234 John Wood, Birmingham, for ... ...
-
Coleman v. State, CR-04-1218.
...issue that can be raised at any time and is not subject to the procedural bars of Rule 32.2, Ala. R.Crim.P. See Adams v. State, 825 So.2d 239 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Moore v. State, 739 So.2d 530 (Ala.Crim.App.1999); and Barnes v. State, 708 So.2d 217 (Ala.Crim. App.1997). It is well-settled t......
-
Ex parte Self
...and Barnes, such an argument is jurisdictional, and Self made specific assertions to support his argument. See also Adams v. State, 825 So.2d 239 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (stating that a claim in a Rule 32 petition that a is illegal because it was not entered under the HFOA is jurisdictional and......
-
Price v. State
...Price's claim that the HFOA was not invoked in his case is not subject to the procedural bars of Rule 32.2, Ala. R. Crim. P. Adams v. State, 825 So.2d 239, 240-41 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) ("[Price] is not claiming that he did not get notice of the State's intent to invoke the HFOA or that he ......