Ex parte Harbor
| Decision Date | 08 February 1985 |
| Parties | Ex Parte Charles Michael HARBOR. (Re: Charles Michael Harbor v. State). 83-1147. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George W. Andrews III, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Glenn L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The writ is quashed as improvidently granted. We cannot agree with the petitioner's argument that the Supreme Court of the United States in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), required appellate courts to test all sentences against the proscriptions of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.
Charles Michael Harbor was convicted of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 20-2-1, et seq., Code of Alabama 1975, and was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, 465 So.2d 455 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). Stated briefly, Police Officer Danny Ballard was called to an accident scene on the night of March 19, 1982. When he arrived he found a wrecked orange Chevrolet Corvette automobile, which he recognized as belonging to Harbor. During the investigation Officer Ballard looked inside the car and saw a plastic bag containing pills, which he believed to be contraband. The officer took the contraband to Hamilton police headquarters and subsequently had it sent to the state lab. The toxicology report on the 27 pills found in the bag indicated they contained dextropropoxythene, a controlled substance, also known as Darvon.
Harbor was convicted in the circuit court of Marion County for possession of a controlled substance. At his sentencing hearing, Harbor was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. Harbor raised several issues on appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his conviction, but refused to review his sentence, finding that it had "no jurisdiction to review sentences within statutorily prescribed limits."
Initially, I note that I agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals as to its determination that Harbor's conviction is due to be affirmed. We granted certiorari to consider the issue of whether the petitioner's punishment was so disproportionate in light of the circumstances of this case as to constitute a violation of his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.
The general rule in Alabama is that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to review a sentence when the punishment imposed is within the limits defined by the punishing statute. Brown v. State, 392 So.2d 1248, 1265 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), and cases cited therein; see also, Wallace v. State, 408 So.2d 171 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 408 So.2d 171 (Ala.1982); Moore v. State, 54 Ala.App. 463, 309 So.2d 500 (1975).
The appellate courts of this state, however, are not prohibited from reviewing a sentence, which, while within the statutorily prescribed limitation, is so disproportionate to the offense charged that it constitutes a violation of a defendant's Eighth Amendment rights.
The United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), considered the life-without-parole sentence imposed upon a defendant convicted of uttering a "no account" check for $100.00, his seventh nonviolent felony. The Supreme Court held that this sentence was significantly disproportionate to the crime, and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atwell v. State
...a search. Duck v. State, 518 So.2d 857, 858 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Harbor v. State, 465 So.2d 455, 458 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. quashed, 465 So.2d 460 (Ala.1985). While the officers' testimony with regard to the location of the Tupperware-type container was contradicted by the testimony of appe......
-
Kinder v. State
... ... Rowe v. State, 421 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied (1982)." Harbor v. State, 465 So.2d 455, 459 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), writ quashed, 465 So.2d 460 (Ala.1985). The appellant's general objection to the court's refusal of ... issue, and there must be sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could conclude that the defendant possessed the intent to kill.' Ex parte Raines, 429 So.2d 1111, 1113 (Ala.1982)." ... Kennedy v. State, 472 So.2d 1092, 1105 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), affirmed, 472 So.2d 1106 ... ...
-
Talley v. City of Clanton
... ... State, 42 Ala.App. 534, 170 So.2d 815 (1965); Bester v. State, 362 So.2d 1282 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte" Shirley, 39 Ala.App. 634, 106 So.2d 671, cert. denied, 268 Ala. 696, 106 So.2d 674 (Ala.1958); Shiff v. State, 84 Ala. 454, 4 So. 419 (1887) ... \xC2" ... Fleming v. State, 470 So.2d 1343 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 857, 106 S.Ct. 164, 88 L.Ed.2d 136 (1985); Harbor v. State, 465 So.2d 455 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); cert. quashed, Ex parte Harbor, 465 So.2d 460 (Ala.1985); Riggins v. State, 437 So.2d 631 ... ...
-
Moore v. State, 8 Div. 930
...So.2d 981 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1053, 105 S.Ct. 1757, 84 L.Ed.2d 820 (1985). However, the appellant cites Ex parte Harbor, 465 So.2d 460 (Ala.1985), and Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983), as authority for why review should be granted when dis......