Crowell v. State
| Decision Date | 29 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 502 |
| Parties | Paul Wesley CROWELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Michael Williams, Sr., Auburn, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted for the crime of embezzlement and sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary. He was represented by court-appointed counsel and at arraignment pleaded not guilty. After sentence was imposed he gave notice of appeal and was furnished a free transcript. New counsel was appointed to represent appellant on this appeal.
At the conclusion of the State's case there was no motion made to exclude the State's evidence. At the conclusion of the entire case appellant made the following motion "At this time, Your Honor, we'd like to make a motion for a directed verdict to exclude the evidence for failure to make a prima facie case."
There was no request for the affirmative charge; there was no motion for a new trial; and no exceptions were reserved to the court's oral charge to the jury.
On August 13, 1979, appellant was employed as a salesman with Plainsman Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, Inc., a corporation, located in Auburn, Alabama. On that date, pursuant to his employment, appellant sold a 1978 Dodge Challenger to Marvin Williford, Jr., of Tuskegee, Alabama. The purchase price was seven thousand, six hundred dollars. Mr. Williford paid twelve hundred dollars as a down payment and sought additional financing through Chrysler Credit Corporation. The twelve hundred dollars was paid to appellant and he along with Mr. Williford went to the office of the sales manager, Mr. David Higgins, who wrote Williford a receipt for the twelve hundred dollars and took his application for the additional financing. Williford then returned to his home in Tuskegee.
Mr. Higgins called Chrysler Credit Corporation and advised them of the down payment and the credit application. The next morning, August 14, 1979, Chrysler Credit Corporation called Mr. Higgins and advised him it would be necessary that Mr. Williford get a co-signer on the note and pay an additional three hundred dollars. Mr. Higgins called Mr. Williford and advised him of these additional requirements. Mr. Williford was agreeable and appellant was sent to Tuskegee with the papers to be co-signed. Appellant met Mr. Williford at a pre-arranged place in Tuskegee and he asked appellant why he had to pay three hundred dollars more as a down payment. Appellant gave him no explanation.
Mr. Williford got in the car with appellant and rode to the Veterans Hospital in Tuskegee where Williford's father was employed. Williford's father agreed to sign the note and the credit application. After the paperwork was completed and they were leaving the VA Hospital appellant told Williford he could pay him the three hundred dollars and save a trip to Auburn. Williford thereupon gave appellant two one hundred dollar bills and five twenty dollar bills.
Appellant returned to Auburn and gave Mr. Higgins, Plainsman's sales manager, the completed credit application and the co-signed note but he did not turn in the three hundred dollars which was still in his possession at that time. Mr. Higgins was busy at the time and told appellant he wanted to talk to him in fifteen or twenty minutes. Later Mr. Higgins met with appellant and informed him he was no longer employed by the company. Appellant's employment was then and there terminated for unrelated reasons. Mr. Higgins got another employee, Mr. Luke McAlister to drive appellant to his home in Opelika. En route to Opelika they stopped at a place and bought a beer. Mr. McAlister who was driving appellant home saw appellant pull a wad of money out of his pocket when they got to Opelika. He saw a hundred dollar bill and some twenties and asked appellant where he got the money, and appellant replied that he always kept money around. When Mr. McAlister returned to Auburn he told Mr. Higgins about the money that appellant had in his possession.
In the meantime Mr. Higgins called Mr. Williford in Tuskegee and asked him when he wanted to come to Auburn with the balance of the three hundred dollars and pick up the car. Williford informed Mr. Higgins that he had paid the three hundred dollars to appellant after his father had signed the papers and the note. Upon learning that appellant had failed to turn in the money at the time he turned in the credit application and the co-signed note, Mr. Higgins dispatched another employee, Mr. Eugene H. Spinks, to Opelika to contact appellant and recover the money. Mr. Spinks went to appellant's home and found him and his girl friend coming out of the door.
Mr. Spinks explained to appellant that the company knew he had the three hundred dollars and if he would return it the whole matter would be forgotten and that would be the end of it. Appellant refused to surrender the money saying, "Under no circumstances, I'm not giving up nothing." Appellant ordered Mr. Spinks out of his yard.
From the record:
On cross-examination he was asked how long it took appellant to get his hand around there to prevent him from taking the money and he replied, "Well, at that time he was intoxicated, so it took him a little time to get his balance to even put his hand over it."
Mr. Spinks further testified that the company had to re-do the contract and change it from a fifteen hundred down payment to twelve hundred dollars down payment and give the customer a three hundred dollar check as a refund.
Appellant testified as the only witness for the defense. He admitted that he had a prior felony conviction for forgery in the second degree and was sentenced to a term of three years in the penitentiary. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deep v. State, 3 Div. 391
...So.2d 575 (Ala.1979); Reed v. State, 372 So.2d 872 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), rev'd on other grounds, 372 So.2d 876 (Ala.1979); Crowell v. State, 389 So.2d 545 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). The appellant argues that the evidence is uncontroverted that Mr. Killough "authorized" the appellant to use and "store"......
-
Hand v. State
...368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1978); McBryar v. State, 368 So.2d 568 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 575 (Ala.1979); Crowell v. State, 389 So.2d 545 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). Moreover, a conflict in the testimony is the sole province for the jury to determine. May v. State, 335 So.2d 242 (Ala.Cr.App.1......
-
Miller v. State
..."Conflicting evidence is for the jury and a verdict rendered thereon will not be disturbed on appeal." Crowell v. State, 389 So.2d 545, 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1980).' Mosley, 461 So.2d at Reese v. State, 549 So.2d 148, 154-55 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), overruled on other grounds, Huntley v. State, 627 So.......
-
Reese v. State
...'Conflicting evidence is for the jury and a verdict rendered thereon will not be disturbed on appeal.' Crowell v. State, 389 So.2d 545, 548 (Ala.Cr.App.1980)." Mosley, 461 So.2d at Reese received a fair trial, and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. All Judges concur. ...