Canyon v. State
Decision Date | 08 July 2016 |
Docket Number | CR–15–0607. |
Citation | 218 So.3d 871 |
Parties | James Lynn CANYON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Lynn Canyon, pro se.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and John J. Davis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
James Lynn Canyon appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief, challenging his January 22, 2001, guilty-plea convictions of third-degree burglary, first-degree theft of property, second-degree theft of property, and the possession of a forged instrument and the resulting 20–year sentences, to be served concurrently. His filing fee was waived. Canyon did not directly appeal his convictions and sentences.
Canyon states that he mailed this, his first, Rule 32 petition on May 15, 2015. As his ground for relief, Canyon argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to accept his guilty plea because, he argued, his constitutional right to be protected from double jeopardy was violated. Canyon contended that his charges and convictions of first-degree theft of property and second-degree theft of property arose from the same acts, facts, and circumstances. Specifically, he alleged that the thefts were of various property taken from the same victim during the same burglary. Canyon further argued that he was improperly convicted of the offense of first-degree theft of property and the lesser-included offense of second-degree theft of property.
The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Canyon committed four separate offenses and that, therefore his claim lacked merit; the State argued that the pistol taken from the victim's house was the basis for the second-degree-theft-of-property conviction and the other items, including knives, a video-cassette recorder, and a microwave, taken from the victim's home were the basis for the first-degree-theft-of-property charge. The State argued that the offenses were not lesser-included offenses and that the claim was not a jurisdictional one. The State also argued that Canyon's claim was precluded because it could have been, but was not, raised at trial or on appeal, Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (a)(5), Ala. R.Crim. P., and that his petition was time-barred pursuant to Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P.
Thereafter, the circuit court issued an order finding that Canyon's claim lacked merit, that it was precluded by Rule 32.2(a)(3) and (5), and that it was time-barred by Rule 32.2(c).
On appeal, Canyon argues that his petition should not have been summarily dismissed because, he argues, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over his case in that his right to be free from double jeopardy was violated when he was convicted of theft of property in the first degree and theft of property in the second degree as a result of the same burglary.
" Ex parte Kelley, [Ms. 1131451, November 6, 2015] –––So.3d ––––, –––– (Ala.2015). Pender v. State 740 So.2d 482, 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).
Rolling v. State, 673 So.2d 812, 816 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (footnote omitted)(Rolling was convicted of the felony murder and reckless manslaughter of the same victim and was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment and 10 years' imprisonment, respectively, and was granted relief on Rule 32 petition.). In Salter v. State, 606 So.2d 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), this Court determined that Salter could raise in a Rule 32 petition his double-jeopardy claim although he had pleaded guilty because, as a jurisdictional matter, he could not be convicted twice of possession of controlled substances for possessing two different types of narcotics in a single point of control at a single time at a single place. See also Pardue v. State, 571 So.2d 320, 329–30 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), rev'd on other grounds, 571 So.2d 333 (Ala.1990) ( ).
We note that there was no impropriety as to Canyon's burglary conviction and one of the theft-of-property convictions. Because the circuit court imposed concurrent sentences of 20 years' imprisonment for Canyon's burglary conviction and his theft conviction, there was no double-jeopardy error.
Ex parte McKelvey, 630 So.2d 56, 57–58 (Ala.1992) (footnote omitted). See also Brown v. State, 821 So.2d 219, 225 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) ( ).
There was no dispute as to the facts supporting this claim. All of the items were taken from the same victim at the same time. The State argued that, because the pistol taken from the victim duringthe burglary was the basis for the second-degree-theft-of-property charge, while the other "specifically stated items" were the basis for the first-degree-theft-of-property charge, there was no double-jeopardy violation. (C. 52.) The circuit court then determined that Canyon's claim lacked merit and that it was precluded. Because Canyon's convictions of theft of property in the first degree and theft of property in the second degree violated double-jeopardy principles, we are reversing the circuit court's judgment and remanding this case to the circuit court to vacate one of those convictions and the accompanying sentence and enter a new judgment. Due return shall be made to this Court within 28 days of this decision.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.*
This Court's decision ostensibly granting James Lynn Canyon's Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief and remanding this case to the circuit court for that court to "vacate one of [his theft-of-property] convictions and the accompanying sentence" 218 So.3d at 874, is, at this juncture, premature.
Here, as the main opinion explains, Canyon's Rule 32, Ala.Crim. P., petition was deemed filed on May 15, 2015; it challenged his January 22, 2001, guilty-plea convictions for third-degree burglary, see § 13A–7–7, Ala.Code 1975, first-degree theft of property, see § 13A–8–3, Ala.Code 1975, second-degree theft of property, see § 13A–8–4, Ala.Code 1975, and possession of a forged instrument, see § 13A–9–6, Ala.Code 1975, and his resulting concurrent sentences, as a habitual felony offender, of 20 years' imprisonment.1
In his petition, Canyon alleged that the circuit court "committed a violation of double jeopardy standards"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kemp v. State
...entitle him to relief, we must remand the cause for the trial court to correct a double-jeopardy violation. See Canyon v. State, 218 So. 3d 871, 872 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) (noting that this Court can take notice ex mero motu of double-jeopardy violations that implicate a trial court's juris......
-
Tate v. State
...addressing double jeopardy as it relates to burglary and theft.Alabama law is contrary to Tate's position. In Canyon v. State, 218 So. 3d 871, 873 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016), this Court stated:"We note that there was no impropriety as to Canyon's burglary conviction and one of the theft-of-prop......
-
Case v. State
... ... See Canyon v. State, [Ms. CR150607, July 8, 2016] 218 So. 3d 871, 876 (Ala.Crim.App.2015)(Joiner, J., dissenting and citing Williams v. State, 104 So.3d 254, 26566 n. 5 (Ala.Crim.App.2012) ... ...
-
Smith v. State, CR-17-0845
...made concurrent, rather than consecutive." Brown v. State, 821 So. 2d 219, 225 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000) ; See also Canyon v. State, 218 So. 3d 871, 873 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016). Because the manner in which Smith is serving his sentences is incorrect, we remand this cause to the circuit court fo......