Ex parte Horton
| Decision Date | 07 September 1984 |
| Citation | 456 So.2d 1120 |
| Parties | Ex parte Lavon HORTON. (In re: Lavon Horton v. State of Alabama). 83-444. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Myron K. Allenstein, Gadsden, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Rivard D. Melson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 456 So.2d 1117, that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. We reach this result on different grounds, however, because we disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that the indictment was not subject to the demurrer interposed by the defendant.
The indictment was subject to demurrer because it did not specify anything about the forged check which Horton was charged with possessing: the indictment did not set out the amount, the payee, the drawer of the check, nor the time or place when Horton possessed it. The indictment did charge Horton with the crime of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree expressly in the terms of Code 1975, § 13A-9-6. If an indictment charges a crime substantially in the terms of the statute creating the offense and sets out all the material elements thereof, it will generally support a conviction even though it might be subject to a proper demurrer. Duin v. State, 288 Ala. 329, 260 So.2d 602 (1972); Allen v. State, 30 Ala.App. 147, 2 So.2d 320, reversed and remanded, 241 Ala. 137, 2 So.2d 321 (1941). In other words, the indictment was not void but merely voidable.
Objections to an indictment which is not void may be waived, usually by failure to interpose a timely demurrer. 1 Howard v. State, 420 So.2d 828 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Cusimano v. State, 33 Ala.App. 62, 31 So.2d 139 (1947); Allen v. State, supra; McCleskey v. State, 28 Ala.App. 97, 179 So. 394 (1938); Hudgins v. State, 22 Ala.App. 403, 116 So. 306 (1928).
Although Horton filed a timely demurrer, he waived all non-jurisdictional objections to the indictment by pleading guilty to the offense charged. A guilty plea, if entered voluntarily and with understanding of the consequences, waives all non-jurisdictional defects. Lane v. State, 412 So.2d 292 (Ala.1982); Dingler v. State, 408 So.2d 530 (Ala.1981).
Although the indictment as framed was not sufficient to protect Horton from the possible double jeopardy of being charged again for possessing the same unspecified check, Horton himself prevented this possibility when, during his Boykin colloquy, he described the circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. State
... ... He cites in support of his argument Ex parte Kyzer, 399 So.2d 330, 334 (Ala.1981), in which the Alabama Supreme Court held that for the crime to fit within the especially heinous, atrocious, or ... In such a case, the indictment is not void but merely voidable. Ex parte Horton, 456 So.2d 1120 (Ala.1984). A defect in an indictment that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise the issue in a timely ... ...
-
Doster v. State
... ... ' Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002) (quoting Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998)). Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 938 ... In such a case, the indictment is not void but merely voidable. Ex parte Horton, 456 So.2d 1120 (Ala.1984). A defect in an indictment that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise the issue in a timely ... ...
-
Spradley v. State
... ... , whenever such error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.” (Emphasis added.) In Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933 (Ala.2008), the Alabama Supreme Court explained: [128 So.3d 779] “ ‘ “To rise to the level ... Const., Art. I, § 8—but the defect does not divest the circuit court of the power to try the case”); Ex parte Horton, 456 So.2d 1120, 1122 (Ala.1984) (holding that challenges to the sufficiency of the allegations in an indictment must be raised at trial); Gargis ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
... ... Beals v. State, 533 So.2d 717 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Harrison v. State, 384 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1980); Ex parte Horton, 456 So.2d 1120, 1121-22 (Ala.1984) ... By order at arraignment the appellant was given 14 days to file special pleas or ... ...