Doseck v. State, CR-07-0198.
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Citation | 8 So.3d 1024 |
| Docket Number | CR-07-0198. |
| Parties | Jeffery Richard DOSECK v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Decision Date | 26 September 2008 |
v.
STATE of Alabama.
Shannon A. Rash, Dothan, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Laura I. Cuthbert, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
WELCH, Judge.
The appellant, Jeffery Richard Doseck, pleaded guilty to second-degree escape, a violation of § 13A-10-32, Ala.Code 1975. Doseck was sentenced, as a habitual felony offender, to 15 years' imprisonment, 14 years of which were suspended, with one year to be served through the Houston County Department of Community Corrections and three years' probation.
Before entering his guilty plea, Doseck expressly reserved the right to appeal the circuit court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that, based on the facts of his case, the indictment erroneously charged him with the felony offense of second-degree escape instead of the misdemeanor offense of failing to remain within the extended limits of confinement or failing to return to the place of confinement within the time prescribed, a violation of § 14-8-42, Ala.Code 1975.
At the time of his escape, Doseck was serving a sentence through the Houston County Department of Community Corrections work-release program for his conviction of the misdemeanor offense of negotiating a worthless negotiable instrument. On March 21, 2007, Doseck failed to return to the jail at the designated time of 7:00 p.m. He returned to the jail at approximately 10:00 on the following morning. He was subsequently indicted for second-degree escape.
Doseck's motion is based upon his contention that the State cannot present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for escape in the second degree. This court has previously held that a lack of evidence as to the elements of the offense charged in the indictment cannot be the basis for the pretrial dismissal of an indictment. In State v. Foster, 935 So.2d 1216, 1216-17 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), this court explained its rationale as follows:
"Rule 13.5(c)(1), Ala. R.Crim. P., provides:
"`A motion to dismiss the indictment may be based upon objections to the venire, the lack of legal qualifications of an individual grand juror, the legal insufficiency of the indictment, or the failure of the indictment to charge an offense.'
"The State is correct in its contention that Rule 13.5(c)(1) does not provide for the dismissal of an indictment based on the insufficiency of the evidence or, as in this case, a possible lack of evidence. See State v. Edwards, 590 So.2d 379 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (establishment of the corpus delicti requires proof of facts by the State so entwined with the merits of the case that a decision as to whether it had been proved should not be made before trial but should be postponed until trial); State v. McClain, 911 So.2d 54 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (trial court cannot dismiss the indictment based on a lack of evidence)."
Therefore, the indictment cannot be dismissed on the grounds Doseck raises on appeal in this case.
The dissent agrees that a motion to dismiss an indictment is not the proper avenue for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The dissent then states that this court has improperly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ankrom v. State
...and we conclude that based on the facts of this case, Ankrom's conviction was proper.Initially, we note that in Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this Court declined to review the merits of a similar issue because the issue had been improperly raised in the trial court by w......
-
Ankrom v. State
...and we conclude that based on the facts of this case, Ankrom's conviction was proper. Initially, we note that in Doseck v. State, 8 So. 3d 1024 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008), this Court declined to review themerits of a similar issue because the issue had been improperly raised in the trial court ......
-
Billingsley v. State
...an indictment.” (State's brief, p. 4.) In our previous unpublished memorandum, this Court relied on the holding in Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). This Court subsequently overruled Doseck, however, in Ankrom v. State, [Ms. CR–09–1148, Aug. 26, 2011] ––– So.3d –––– (Ala.Cr......
-
State v. Worley
...determination of sufficiency of the State's case. E.g., State v. Robertson, 8 So.3d 356 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). In Doseck v. State, 8 So.3d 1024 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), this Court addressed circumstances substantially similar to those presented in this case, and we held that the circuit court had......