Crawford v. State
Decision Date | 07 July 2011 |
Docket Number | CR-09-1883 |
Parties | Kenneth Robert Crawford v. State of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court
Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Kenneth Robert Crawford, a convicted sex offender, pleaded guilty to establishing a residence or other living accommodation where a minor resides, a violation of § 15-20-26(c), Ala. Code 1975,a part of the Community Notification Act, § 15-20-20 et seq., Ala. Code 1975 ("the CNA"). The circuit court sentenced Crawford to two years in prison but suspended that sentence and placed him on three years' probation. Additionally, the circuit court ordered Crawford to pay a $100 victims compensation assessment.
The facts are undisputed. In 1998, Crawford was convicted of second-degree sodomy, in which his minor child was the victim; he is therefore subject to the residency requirements of the CNA. § 15-20-26, Ala. Code 1975. In August 2009, Crawford moved in with his son, his son's wife, and his two minor grandchildren.1 When Crawford attempted to register his new address with the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, he was told that he could not live with his son because doing so violated the restrictions of the CNA. Crawford lived with his son's family from August 16, 2009, to October 16, 2009. In April 2010, Crawford was indicted by the Jefferson County Grand Jury for violating the CNA. After he was indicted, Crawford filed a verified motion to dismiss the indictment, which the circuit court denied. After the motionwas denied, Crawford expressly reserved his right to appeal the issues raised in his verified motion to dismiss, and he pleaded guilty. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Crawford contends that the residency restrictions in § 15-20-26(c), Ala. Code 1975, are unconstitutional. Specifically, Crawford contends that the CNA violates the protections of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment and that the CNA is an ex post facto law that violates Article I, § 10, of the United States Constitution.
Crawford argues that § 15-20-26 (c) is unconstitutional because, he says, it violates the protections of the Due Process Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part: "[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Due Process Clause both guarantees fair process and includes a substantive component that '"provides heightened protection againstgovernment interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.'" Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000) (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997)). Here, Crawford challenges the CNA under both the procedural and substantive components of the Due Process Clause.
State v. Adams, [Ms. CR-08-1728, November 5, 2010] ___ So. 3d ____, ____ (Ala. Crim. App. 2010) .
Crawford first argues that § 15-20-26 (c), Ala. Code 1975, violates the procedural component of the Due Process Clause because the statute provides no mechanism for a convicted sex offender to petition the court for an exemption from the restrictions imposed by the CNA. The procedural component ofthe Due Process Clause guarantees that a state will not deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without some form of notice and an opportunity to be heard. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). To prevail on a procedural-due-process claim, Crawford must show that the CNA deprives him of a protected liberty interest and that the procedure accompanying the deprivation is constitutionally inadequate. Kentucky Pep ' t of Corr. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460 (1989).
Here, Crawford argues that the CNA deprives him of the right of familial association because, he says, as a convicted sex offender it precludes him from living with his son, his minor grandchildren, and his daughter-in-law or with his wife and her daughter. The United States Supreme Court has recognized several different liberty interests implicit in the Due Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720. These liberty interests include "the right to marry, to have children, to direct the education and upbringing of one's children, to marital privacy, to use contraception, to bodily integrity, and to abortion." Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), the United States Supreme Court held:
Roberts, 468 U.S. at 619-20. Thus, the right to enter into and maintain certain familial associations is a protectedliberty interest. As such the State cannot impede one's ability to associate with one's family without due process of law.
Because Crawford satisfies the first prong of the procedural due-process analysis, we must now determine whether the procedure accompanying the deprivation of his liberty interest was constitutionally adequate. To support his procedural due-process argument, Crawford cites this Court's ruling in J.L.N. v. State, 894 So. 2d 738 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002) .
J.L.N....
To continue reading
Request your trial