Alexander v. State
Decision Date | 08 April 1986 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 955 |
Citation | 488 So.2d 41 |
Parties | Terry ALEXANDER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Robert Bentley, of Bentley & Criswell, Oneonta, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn V. Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Terry Alexander, was indicted for theft in the second degree and receiving stolen property in the second degree by a two-count indictment returned in June 1985. On August 8, 1985, appellant, with counsel present, appeared before the court, waived reading of the indictment, and pleaded not guilty. Trial was set for September 30, 1985. On the date of trial, appellant, with counsel present, moved for withdrawal of his not guilty plea and for entry of a guilty plea. The trial court granted the request and a guilty plea was entered. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to one year and one day in the state penitentiary on his plea of guilty.
One issue is raised by appellant. He contends that there is no factual basis in the record to support the convictions for theft of property in the second degree and receiving stolen property in the second degree.
In a guilty plea proceeding, the trial judge should undertake a factual inquiry to determine if the plea is voluntarily made with an understanding of the nature of the charge and of the consequences of the plea. The trial judge should also be satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. Clark v. State, 294 Ala. 485, 318 So.2d 805 (1974); Twyman v. State, 293 Ala. 75, 300 So.2d 124 (1974); Atteberry v. State, 448 So.2d 425 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 448 So.2d 425 (Ala.1984); Cashin v. State, 428 So.2d 179 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Dingler v. State, 408 So.2d 527 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ quashed, 408 So.2d 530 (Ala.1981); Fields v. State, 339 So.2d 1088 (Ala.Cr.App.1976); Ireland v. State, 47 Ala.App. 65, 250 So.2d 602 (1971).
In Clark v. State, supra, our Supreme Court stated:
294 Ala. at 488, 318 So.2d 805 (emphasis added).
In Young v. State, 408 So.2d 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), an opinion by Presiding Judge Bowen, this court, in referring to the above quotation from Clark, further stated:
The record in the instant case contains an Ireland form signed by the trial judge, appellant, and counsel. Ireland v. State, 47 Ala.App. at 67, 250 So.2d at 604. An extensive colloquy was conducted between appellant and the trial court, which appears in the record. Neither the Ireland form nor the colloquy sets out the specific elements of the crimes charged in the indictment. Appellant did not personally state facts which would show his commission of the offense charged. The Ireland form, however, does advise him of the crimes charged and states: "You will enter a plea of guilty only if you are actually guilty of said crime...." The Ireland form correctly sets out the maximum and minimum sentences which appellant could receive. It also, inter alia, advises appellant, in accordance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), of his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to trial by jury, and his right to confront his accusers. Appellant's signature attests that his attorney "has thoroughly gone over said matters and things with him and that he, the defendant, thoroughly understands them." The defense attorney's signature attests that appellant read his rights contained in the Ireland form, that the defense attorney read them to appellant and explained them to him in detail, and that appellant was given a copy of them to keep and study. In the colloquy, the trial judge again advised appellant of the crimes charged in the indictment, the maximum and minimum sentences, and his rights pursuant to Boykin v. Alabama, supra. The trial judge further advised appellant that he should enter a guilty plea only if he was guilty of the crimes charged in the indictment. Appellant stated that his attorney had "gone over" the Ireland form with him and that he understood it.
Appellant primarily relies on Atteberry v. State, supra. This court held in Atteberry that "when the offense is simple and specific, the rule requiring the determination of a factual basis may be satisfied by a reading of the charge." (Citing Morris v. State, 424 So.2d 1380 (Ala.Cr.App.1982)).
In Count I of the indictment appellant was charged with knowingly obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over a chain saw belonging to Steve Sherrell of the value of $150 with the intent to deprive the owner of the property, in violation of § 13A-8-4, Code of Alabama 1975. In Count II he was charged with intentionally receiving, retaining, or disposing of a stolen chain saw which was the property of Steve Sherrell of the value of $150 knowing that it was stolen or having reasonable grounds to believe that it was stolen and not having the intent to restore it to its owner, in violation of § 13A-8-18, Code of Alabama 1975. The counts of the indictment clearly set forth the elements of the alleged offenses and the facts constituting the basis of the allegations. The offenses alleged are self-explanatory and so simple in meaning that it can be expected or assumed that a lay person would understand them. In the instant case, the rule requiring the determination of a factual basis would have been clearly satisfied by a reading of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. State
...and entered pleas of not guilty; thus, he was charged with knowledge of the contents of the indictments. See, e.g., Alexander v. State, 488 So.2d 41, 44 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986) ("When a defendant waives the reading of an indictment at his arraignment, he is nonetheless charged with knowledge o......
-
Snavely v. City of Huntsville
...and so simple in meaning that it can be expected or assumed that a layperson would understand them." Alexander v. State, 488 So.2d 41, 43 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (stating that, in a guilty plea proceeding where the indictment clearly set forth the elements of the offense, the defendant was able t......
-
Wiggins v. State
...was not error. See Russell v. State, 428 So.2d 131, 134 (Ala.1982); Mantoz v. State, 495 So.2d 120 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Alexander v. State, 488 So.2d 41 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Atteberry v. State, 448 So.2d 425 Moreover, we note that this cause is indistinguishable from Mantoz, Alexander, and Atte......
-
Tillery v. State, CR-93-795
...See also Heptinstall v. State, 624 So.2d 1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Bowens v. State, 570 So.2d 844 (Ala.Cr.App.1990); Alexander v. State, 488 So.2d 41 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); and Cashin v. State, 428 So.2d 179 Based on an examination of Boykin; Rule 14.4, A.R.Crim.P.; and Alabama case law, we find ......