Brown v. State
Decision Date | 22 August 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-96-776 |
Parties | Christopher Michael BROWN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Emily Briscoe, Auburn, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Cedric B. Colvin, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Christopher Michael Brown, pleaded guilty to, and was convicted of, two counts of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, marihuana, a violation of § 13A-12-211, Ala. Code 1975. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment on each conviction; the sentences were to run concurrently.
The record reveals that on October 22, 1996, the appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges of unlawful distribution of marihuana, a Class B felony. (C.R. 10, 21.) On November 12, 1996, the appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty to both counts. (R. 2.) During the guilty plea colloquy, the appellant stated that he had read and understood his rights, that he understood the charges contained in the indictment, and that he understood the minimum and maximum sentence that could be imposed upon conviction for each offense. (R. 2-7.)
The appellant also executed an "Explanation of Rights and Plea of Guilty" form, commonly known as the Ireland form 1, which reflected the nature of the guilty plea and the appellant's understanding of his constitutional rights. (C.R. 11, 22.) The form apprised the appellant of the correct sentencing range for a conviction for a Class B felony, and it further advised him of the state's intent to seek enhancement of the sentences under § 13A-12-250, Ala. Code 1975, because, it said, the drug sales occurred within a three-mile radius of a school. The appellant testified that he had read the form and that he understood the contents. (R. 2-3.) The appellant's counsel informed the trial court that he had reviewed the Ireland form with the appellant and that he had advised the appellant of his constitutional rights and the nature of the charges against him. (R. 7.)
The trial court determined that the guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered. The trial court's order states that the appellant was advised of his rights and the consequences of pleading guilty before his guilty plea was accepted. (C.R. 2, 16.)
The appellant now challenges the voluntariness of his plea because, he claims, the trial court failed 1) to adequately explain the nature of the charges; 2) to establish a sufficient factual basis for the guilty plea; and 3) to advise him of the minimum and maximum sentencing range, including the application of any enhancement statutes.
The record indicates that the appellant did not object at any time during the plea proceeding or during the sentencing hearing, and he did not file a motion to withdraw the plea, or a motion for a new trial. Accordingly, we find that the appellant's claims are not preserved for appellate review. See Lasner v. State, 689 So.2d 1004 (Ala.Cr.App.1996); Moore v. State, 668 So.2d 100, 102 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) ( ); Stinson v. State, 669 So.2d 1010, 1011 (Ala.1995) ( ).
Moreover, even if the appellant's assertions had been preserved for appellate review, his claims are without merit because the record reflects that the appellant knowingly and voluntarily signed the Ireland form.
Humber v. State, 481 So.2d 452, 454 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (footnote omitted; emphasis added).
The attorney general asks this Court to remand this case to the circuit court for the assessment of a penalty pursuant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brooks v. State
...(Ala.Cr.App. 1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997); and Brown v. State, 712 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Cr.App.1997)." See also Baker v. State, 683 So.2d 1 (Ala. Crim.App.1995); Page v. State, 622 So.2d 441 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Therefore, ......
-
Eugene Milton Clemons Ii v. State
...(Ala.Cr.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997); and Brown v. State, 712 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Cr.App.1997).’ “See also Baker v. State, 683 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.1995); Page v. State, 622 So.2d 441 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Therefore, a......
-
Hall v. State
...; Snell v. State , 715 So.2d 920 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) ; May v. State , 729 So.2d 362 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) ; Brown v. State , 712 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ; Williams v. State , 706 So.2d 821 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ; Woods v. State , 695 So.2d 636 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) ; Burks v. State , 689 S......
-
Payne v. State
...(Ala.Cr.App.1995), aff'd, 695 So.2d 138 (Ala.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 969, 118 S.Ct. 418, 139 L.Ed.2d 320 (1997); and Brown v. State, 712 So.2d 1112 (Ala.Cr. App.1997). Additionally, the following claims in Payne's petition are procedurally barred under Rule 32.2(a)(2) and (5), Ala.R.Crim.......