Ex parte Hayden, 4 Div. 168
| Decision Date | 23 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 168 |
| Parties | Ex parte: Harold E. HAYDEN. (In re State of Alabama v. Harold E. Hayden). |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
W. Terry Bullard, Dothan, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen. and Charles W. Hart III, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Henry D. Binford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dothan, for respondent.
This is a petition for writ of mandamus wherein the petitioner seeks to compel the circuit judge to order his release from jail. The facts are:
January 7, 1988 Petitioner pleaded guilty to Theft III and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.
January 28 Probation was denied.
May 6 On petitioner's oral motion, the trial judge, without prior notice to the district attorney, modified and reduced the sentence to 99 days (which the petitioner had already served) and released the petitioner.
June 4 The district attorney filed a motion to reinstate sentence.
June 14 After a hearing, the trial judge reinstated the original 12 months' sentence.
In reinstating the original sentence, the trial judge stated, "Although this Court has been under the understanding that Circuit Courts had the authority to modify sentences beyond 30 days from the imposition of sentence as argued in DEFENDANT'S Memorandum of Law, the cases of Stout v. State, 45 Ala.App. 262, 229 So.2d 37 (1969) (paragraph 1), and Ex parte Pennington, 57 Ala.App. 128, 326 So.2d 656 (1976), although not directly on point, indicate that the Court has no power to suspend the execution of sentence after the date sentence is ordered."
Since there was no motion for new trial or request to modify sentence filed within 30 days of sentencing, the trial judge lost all jurisdiction to modify the defendant's sentence. Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala.1985); State v. Green, 436 So.2d 803 (Ala.1983). See also Rule 13, Temp.A.R.Cr.P. The circuit court's order of May 6th reducing and modifying the petitioner's sentence was a nullity. Therefore, this petition is due to be denied.
PETITION DENIED.
All Judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuire v. State
...loses all jurisdiction to modify the sentence." Massey v. State, 587 So. 2d 448, 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991) (citing Ex parte Hayden, 531 So.2d 940 (Ala.1988)). In other words, not only does the HFOA not contemplate a modification to the duration of a sentence after the sentence was imposed,......
-
EX PARTE STATE
...Massey v. State, 587 So.2d 448 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Hill v. State, 562 So.2d 1386 (Ala.Crim. App.1990); Ex parte Hayden, 531 So.2d 940 (Ala.Crim.App.1988); State v. Green, 436 So.2d 803 (Ala.1983); Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 593 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), aff'd, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala.1985), on rema......
-
Ross v. State
...for new trial. The trial court has no jurisdiction to consider an issue raised in an untimely motion for new trial. Ex parte Hayden, 531 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). A claim first presented in an untimely motion for new trial is not preserved for appellate review and may not be consi......
-
Phillips v. State
...either pursuant to a motion to modify or "ex mero motu." Hollins v. State, 737 So.2d 1056 (Ala.Cr.App.1998). See Ex parte Hayden, 531 So.2d 940, 941 (Ala.Cr. App.1988) ("Since there was no motion for new trial or request to modify sentence filed with 30 days of sentencing, the trial judge l......