Ex parte Jackson
| Decision Date | 07 May 1982 |
| Parties | Ex parte Charles Cartwright JACKSON. (Re Charles Cartwright Jackson v. State of Alabama). 81-234. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John Coleman, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Leura J. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
We granted the writ of certiorari directed to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 415 So.2d 1167 to review a question of first impression: Whether a trial court has the authority to order that separate probation sentences imposed under the Youthful Offender Act run consecutively. 1 We hold that the imposition of consecutive probationary sentences would contravene the purpose of the Act.
On October 21, 1976, petitioner was sentenced under a youthful offender conviction and placed on probation for three years. On April 22, 1977, petitioner was again adjudged a youthful offender and sentenced to three years of probation to run consecutively to the October 21, 1976, sentence. On March 25, 1981, after a hearing on delinquency charges, the District Court of Mobile County revoked petitioner's probation and reinstated the suspended sentence of three years which had been imposed on April 22, 1977. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment.
Petitioner argued to the Court of Criminal Appeals, and now to this Court, that the trial court was without jurisdiction to reinstate the April 22, 1977, sentence because his probation period ended on April 22, 1980, three years after he was last sentenced as a youthful offender. Petitioner relies upon Code of 1975, § 15-19-6(a)(2), which provides:
"(a) If a person is adjudged a youthful offender and the underlying charge is a felony, the court shall:
....
"(2) Place the defendant on probation for a period not to exceed three years;"
The Court of Criminal Appeals, finding no direction from the Youthful Offender Act as to what to do when multiple sentences under separate youthful offender convictions are imposed, affirmed the district court and held the consecutive sentences of probation, an aggregate of five and one-half years, to be proper. The Court of Criminal Appeals based its holding upon Code of 1975, § 14-3-38(a) and Rule 11(a) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Temporary Rules, which provide that sentences of imprisonment shall be served consecutively. Neither the statute nor the rule addresses sentences of probation and they are, therefore, inapplicable.
It is our judicial obligation to construe statutes in such a way as to carry out the will of the legislative branch of the government. That is, we are to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature as expressed in the statute. By the enactment of the Youthful Offender Act, the legislature not only sought to provide an alternative method of sentencing minors, but, in fact, created a procedure separate and apart from the criminal procedure dealing with adults accused of the same offense. Raines v. State, 294 Ala. 360, 317 So.2d 559 (1975). Code of 1975, § 15-19-6(a)(2) establishes the maximum probationary sentence or period allowable for a youthful offender, i.e., three years. That limitation on a sentence of probation is obviously one of the intended advantages of the Act. By comparison, the maximum probationary period for "adult" defendants found guilty of a felony is five years. Code of 1975, § 15-22-54(a). 2 Hence, consecutive sentences of probation would thwart the intention of the legislature. Although the Youthful Offender Act does not prohibit the imposition of separate or multiple sentences...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oliver
... ... have found only three cases which deal with separate charging documents in terms of a statutory limitation on the duration of probation: Ex Parte Jackson, 415 So.2d 1169 (Ala.1982); People v. Gischer, 51 Ill.App.3d 847, 9 Ill.Dec. 264, 366 N.E.2d [490 A.2d 250] 521 (1977); and United States ... ...
-
Brand v. State
... ... State, 975 So.2d 395 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), and the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Jackson, 415 So.2d 1169 (Ala.1982). In Jackson, the Alabama Supreme Court held that, in the case of a youthful offender, 15196(a)(2), Ala.Code ... ...
-
Brand v. State
... ... State , 975 So. 2d 395 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007), and the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Jackson, 415 So. 2d 1169 (Ala. 1982). In Jackson , the Alabama Supreme Court held that, in the case of a youthful offender, 15-19-6(a)(2), Ala ... ...
-
Oliver v. State
... ... See, e.g., State v. Wilson, 122 Ariz.App. 244, 594 P.2d 110 (1979); Gonzales v. State, 608 P.2d 23 (Alaska 1980); Jackson v. State, 415 So.2d 1169 (Ala.1982) ... The experts in this area have generally argued that the rehabilitative purpose of probation ... ...