Elder v. State, 2 Div. 533
Decision Date | 24 June 1986 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 533 |
Citation | 494 So.2d 922 |
Parties | Charles Wesley ELDER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William T. Faile, Selma, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Fred F. Bell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Charles Wesley Elder pled guilty and was convicted of the capital murder-robbery of Mark Cozadd. Sentence was life imprisonment without parole.
Elder argues that the trial court did not follow the proper procedure in accepting his guilty plea because the jury was selected by the agreement of both the prosecution and the defense.
Before the jury selection began, the trial judge determined that Elder was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In particular, the judge determined that Elder knew that if he pled guilty to the capital offense, the penalty would be death or life imprisonment without parole.
The record shows that the jury venire was qualified and voir dired. Two of defense counsel's three challenges for cause were granted. After the jury was sworn, the following occurred outside the jury's presence:
The State then presented a prima facie case of Elder's guilt and the jury found him guilty "of the capital offense as charged in the indictment."
"The guilty plea shall have the effect of waiving all non-jurisdictional defects in the proceeding resulting in the conviction except the sufficiency of the evidence." Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-42.
With regard to a guilty plea in a capital case, the requirement of § 13A-5-42 that the accused's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury is jurisdictional. Cox v. State, 462 So.2d 1047, 1051 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). A trial judge has no jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea in a capital case without empaneling a jury to try the question of guilt. Cox, supra. However, the manner of selecting a jury is a procedural and not a jurisdictional matter. See Haynes v. State, 424 So.2d 669, 670-72 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 648 (1979). "Objection to the empaneling of the jury must be taken in the court below, ... in order that the matter may be reviewable by this court." Hendley v. State, 200 Ala. 546, 547, 76 So. 904 (1917); Lehr v. State, 398 So.2d 791, 800 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). "An accused cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby." Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 474, 179 So.2d 51 (1965). By consenting to the proceedings in the trial court, the defendant is estopped to allege error. Hill v. State, 57 Ala.App. 437, 440, 329 So.2d 126, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 406, 329 So.2d 132 (1976).
Elder contends that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not have a full understanding of the law and its future consequences. He testified that one of his two appointed counsel informed him that "if the laws were ever changed on capital punishment so that a defendant could receive life instead of life without parole, that I could appeal back to the Court for a sentence reduction and have my time cut to life." He stated, "I was not told that the law would change, only that if it ever did, then I could appeal."
* * *
* * * "I would have not plead guilty if I would have known that the law--that I couldn't appeal for a sentence reduction."
Elder was represented at trial by Attorneys Patrick Cheshire and Charles H. Morris, III. Both counsel withdrew after Elder filed his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and new counsel was appointed.
At the hearing on the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the affidavits of Attorneys Cheshire and Morris were admitted into evidence. In his affidavit, Cheshire stated:
Attorney Morris's statement corroborates Cheshire's account:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. State
...be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury is jurisdictional. See Cox v. State, 462 So.2d 1047 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); Elder v. State, 494 So.2d 922 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).3 This court has found plain error in the trial court's instruction to the jury in a capital case on other occasions. See ......
-
Norris v. State, 6 Div. 213
...of the offense."4 We express no view on the dicta in Cox v. State, 462 So.2d 1047, 1051 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), and Elder v. State, 494 So.2d 922, 923 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), to the effect that the requirement of § 13A-5-42 that the accused's guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury is jur......
-
Coleman v. State ).
...affirmance of the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32 petition conflicts with the following decisions: Elder v. State, 494 So.2d 922 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Booker, 992 So.2d 686 (Ala.2008); Brown v. State, 727 So.2d 885 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Ex......
-
Ex Parte Booker, 1070376.
...We granted the petition to determine whether the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case conflicts with Elder v. State, 494 So.2d 922 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), and Davis v. State, 682 So.2d 476 II. Standard of Review "`This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal cases de ......