Ainsworth v. State, 4 Div. 314
Decision Date | 13 November 1984 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 314 |
Citation | 465 So.2d 467 |
Parties | Willie Lee AINSWORTH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry E. Stokes, Andalusia, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Phillip Luke Hughes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury found defendant (appellant) guilty on a trial on the following indictment:
"THE GRAND JURY OF COVINGTON COUNTY CHARGES THAT BEFORE THE FINDING OF THIS INDICTMENT, WILLIE LEE AINSWORTH ... DID KNOWINGLY OBTAIN OR EXERT UNAUTHORIZED CONTROL OVER A MOTOR VEHICLE, TO-WIT: A 1975 GRAND PRIX PONTIAC AUTOMOBILE, THE PROPERTY OF MARY LOU ARMSTRONG, WITH THE INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE OWNER OF SAID MOTOR VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 13A-8-3 OF THE CODE OF ALABAMA 1975, AND AS LAST AMENDED, AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA."
According to Section 13A-8-3(c), theft of property in the first degree is a Class B felony, which by § 13A-5-6(a)(2) is punishable by imprisonment for "not more than 20 years or less than 2 years." At a sentence hearing conducted after defendant had been given due notice of the State's intention to proceed against him under the Habitual Felony Offenders Act, and it was shown that defendant had been previously convicted of three felonies, the court sentenced him to imprisonment for life, which punishment was made mandatory under § 13A-5-9(c)(2).
No issue is raised on appeal as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. Nevertheless, we deem it appropriate to state here a sufficient part of the evidence to assure that proper consideration is given to each of the issues raised on appeal. In doing so, we quote from the "STATEMENT OF FACTS" contained in brief of counsel for appellant, which appellee states in its brief "is substantially correct and is adopted herein by reference." We will endeavor to limit the quotations that follow to those that have a material bearing upon the issues raised on appeal:
The only witnesses testifying in the case were witnesses called by the State. When the State rested its case, defendant's counsel stated promptly that the defendant also rested.
By his first issue, appellant contends that "the trial court committed reversible error by refusing defendant's requested jury charges 'numbers 1, 2, and 3.' " We consider separately each of said refused charges requested in writing by defendant.
Defendant's requested Charge No. 1 states:
"The Court charges you that where one takes the vehicle of another without his permission, intending only to drive it somewhere and leave it where the owner may reclaim it, he is not guilty of theft of property in the first degree."
We realize that under the evidence in this case it is possible that in taking the vehicle of the owner without her permission, the defendant intended "only to drive it somewhere and leave it where the owner may reclaim it," but there is no evidence in the case to support an inference that such was the intention of defendant. The charge is predicated upon an assumption of fact as to the actual intent of defendant for which the evidence furnishes no basis. The trial court was correct in refusing the charge.
Defendant's requested Charge No. 3 states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte McGriff
...could not intelligently comply with their duty as jurors. Miller v. State, Ala. Cr.App., 405 So.2d 41, 48 (1981)." Ainsworth v. State, 465 So.2d 467, 471 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). In the case now before us, the trial judge did not succeed in performing his mandatory duty in this The Court of Cri......
-
Thornton v. State
...See Ala.Code § 13A-10-30(b)(1) (1975). Because of this failure, we reversed Gross's conviction. Gross at 404. See also Ainsworth v. State, 465 So.2d 467 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied (1985) (failure to include statutory definition of "deprive" constituted reversible The cause sub judice, ......
-
Riggs v. State
...as jurors. Miller v. State, Ala. Cr.App., 405 So.2d 41, 48 (1981).’ ” Ex parte McGriff, 908 So.2d at 1035 (quoting Ainsworth v. State, 465 So.2d 467, 471 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)). Further, “ ‘[i]t is a basic tenet of Alabama law that “a party is entitled to have his theory of the case, made by ......
-
Riggs v. State, CR-09-1349
...jurors. Miller v. State, Ala. Cr. App., 405 So. 2d 41, 48 (1981).'" Ex parte McGriff, 908 So. 2d at 1035 (quoting Ainsworth v. State, 465 So. 2d 467, 471 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984)). Further, "'[i]t is a basic tenet of Alabama law that "a party is entitled to have his theory of the case, made b......