Arnold v. State, CR-93-1540
Citation | 668 So.2d 111 |
Decision Date | 28 July 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-93-1540 |
Parties | Roger Elton ARNOLD, Sr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court, Nos. CC-91-2642.80 and 91-2643.80; Edward McDermott, Judge.
Gordon Armstrong III, Mobile, for Appellant.
James H. Evans, and Jeff Sessions, Attys. Gen., and Margaret Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
ON RETURN TO REMAND
The appellant, Roger Elton Arnold, Sr., was convicted of attempted murder, a violation of §§ 13A-6-4 and 13A-4-2, Code of Alabama 1975, and burglary in the second degree, a violation of § 13A-7-6, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to life in the penitentiary for the attempted murder conviction and to 20 years in the penitentiary for the burglary conviction. Both sentences were to be served concurrently. We remanded this case so that the court could conduct a Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), hearing. Arnold v. State, 668 So.2d 109 (Ala.Cr.App.1995). We further directed the court not to rely solely on the percentage composition of the jury when determining whether a prima facie case of gender discrimination existed. This practice of relying solely on percentages as to the racial composition of the jury was condemned by the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3 (Ala.1994).
The trial court has filed the following order on return to remand:
The court's order reflects that in determining whether the defense had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the court considered more than the composition of the jury. A trial court's ruling on a Batson motion is entitled to great deference on appeal, Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 fn. 21, 106 S.Ct. at 1724 fn. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d at 89, and will be reversed only if the ruling is "clearly erroneous." Ex parte Lynn, 543 So.2d 709 (Ala.1988). The trial court's ruling was not "clearly erroneous."
The appellant also contends on appeal that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chapman v. State
...after the burglary had been completed and, thus, are separate from the acts establishing the burglary. Cf. Arnold v. State, 668 So.2d 111, 112–113 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (holding that convictions for burglary and attempted murder do not violate double-jeopardy principles). Accordingly, I respe......
-
Culver v. State
...Attempted murder and burglary are two distinct crimes, each requiring proof that the other does not. See, e.g., Arnold v. State, 668 So.2d 111 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). The trial court was correct in denying Rule 32 relief; therefore, I would affirm the COBB, J., concurs. ...