Cagle v. State
| Decision Date | 10 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 556 |
| Citation | 504 So.2d 1225 |
| Parties | Walter CAGLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Zingarelli of Teague & Zingarelli, Decatur, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was found guilty of escape in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-10-31, Code of Alabama (1975), and was sentenced to life imprisonment, pursuant to the Habitual Felony Offender Act. The appellant was serving a sentence for second degree burglary 1 as an inmate at the Decatur Work Release Center. He also worked at this facility. Inmates working at the Decatur Work Release Center were allowed to leave only if given permission or assigned a particular work release employment or activity. The appellant, on the date in question, at approximately 1:30 a.m., received permission from a corrections officer to go to another building within the work release center to talk with another inmate. Thereafter, a head-count was taken which revealed that the appellant was missing from the work release center. Following an investigation, the appellant was found at approximately 6:00 a.m. at his fiancee's apartment in Decatur. The appellant took the stand and testified that he knew that he was not allowed to leave the facility, but that he had some personal problems that he wanted to discuss with his fiancee.
The appellant contends that his conviction was contrary to the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws in that his actions did not fall within the narrow definition of "custody" applicable to escape in the first degree at the time of the offense. However, the appellant never raised this issue before or during trial. Constitutional issues must be raised at trial before they can be considered by this court. Cartwright v. State, 466 So.2d 1023 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Block v. State, 455 So.2d 1011 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Owen v. State, 418 So.2d 214 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).
Even if the appellant had properly preserved this issue, his argument is without merit. Although the narrow definition of "custody" established by Grimes v. State, 402 So.2d 1094 (Ala.Cr.App.1981) is applicable to the appellant's escape, Ex parte Alexander, 475 So.2d 628 (Ala.1985), the appellant's detention meets the elements of "custody" as defined by Grimes. The appellant, an inmate, improperly left a work release facility to which he was confined. "Custody" was defined by Grimes pursuant to § 13A-10-30(b)(1), Code of Alabama (1975), as:
"A restraint or detention by a public servant pursuant to a lawful arrest, conviction or order of court, but does not include mere supervision of probation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Poole v. State
...Andersen v. State, 418 So.2d 967 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Hansen v. State, 598 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991); Cagle v. State, 504 So.2d 1225 (Ala. Crim.App.1987); Crosslin v. State, 540 So.2d 98 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Therefore, before this Court will review an alleged Apprendi violation, the defe......
-
DeFries v. State
...571 So.2d 1297, 1299 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). Even constitutional issues must be seasonably raised or they are waived. Cagle v. State, 504 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Johnson v. State, 480 So.2d 14, 17-18 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). A defendant who fails to raise an issue regarding the regularity ......
-
Davis v. State
...issues may be waived on appeal if not presented to the trial court. Crosslin v. State, 540 So.2d 98 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Cagle v. State, 504 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Cr. App.1987); Andersen v. State, 418 So.2d 967 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Moore v. State, 415 So.2d 1210 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. ......
-
Hale v. State
...Andersen v. State, 418 So.2d 967 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982); Hansen v. State, 598 So.2d 1 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Cagle v. State, 504 So.2d 1225 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Crosslin v. State, 540 So.2d 98 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988). Therefore, before this Court will review an alleged Apprendi violation, the defe......