Ex parte Marlowe

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: HOUSTON, Justice.
• Citation: 854 So.2d 1189
• Parties: Ex parte John Steven MARLOWE. (In re John Steven Marlowe, alias Steven Peavy v. State of Alabama).
• Decision Date: 07 February 2003

854 So.2d 1189

Ex parte John Steven MARLOWE.
(In re John Steven Marlowe, alias Steven Peavy v. State of Alabama)

1012174.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 7, 2003.

854 So.2d 1190

C. Mark Lowell, Monroeville, for petitioner

William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley and Elizabeth Ray Butler, asst. attys. gen., for respondent.

HOUSTON, Justice.

John Steven Marlowe was convicted of robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-8-41, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Marlowe's conviction. Marlowe v. State, 854 So.2d 1182 (Ala.Crim.App. 2002). We granted Marlowe's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly decided that the State had produced sufficient evidence indicating that the victim had suffered a "serious physical injury," an element of § 13A-8-41. We now affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and adopt the reasoning of that court as set out in the following portion of its opinion:

"Marlowe argues in his brief to this Court that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal and his motion for a new trial.... Marlowe, in his motion for a new trial [and in his motion for a judgment of acquittal], argued, in relevant part, that the State had failed to prove a prima facie case of first-degree robbery, and he specifically stated that the prosecution had failed to prove that [the victim] suffered serious physical injury.

"The Alabama Supreme Court addressed the appellate court's role in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases in Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala.1998):

"`"In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction, a reviewing court must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution. Faircloth v. State, 471 So.2d 485 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd, 471 So.2d 493 (Ala.1985)." Powe v. State, 597 So.2d 721, 724 (Ala.1991). It is not the function of this Court to decide whether the evidence is believable beyond a reasonable doubt, Pennington v. State, 421 So.2d 1361 (Ala. Cr.App.1982); rather, the function of this Court is to determine whether there is legal evidence from which a rational finder of fact could have, by fair inference, found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. State, 598 So.2d 1054 (Ala.Cr. App.1992). Thus, "[t]he role of appellate courts is not to say what the facts are. [Their role] is to judge whether the evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission of an issue for decision [by] the jury." Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040, 1042 (Ala.1978) (emphasis original).'

"730 So.2d at 658.

"Section 13A-8-41(a)(2), Ala.Code 1975, provides: `A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree if he

854 So.2d 1191

violates Section 13A-8-43 and he: ... Causes serious physical injury to another.' Section 13A-8-43 defines third-degree robbery. A person commits third-degree robbery in violation of § 13A-8-43, Ala.Code 1975, if he uses force or threatens the

...