Ex parte Randle
| Decision Date | 21 July 1989 |
| Citation | 554 So.2d 1138 |
| Parties | Ex parte David RANDLE. (Re David Randle v. State). 87-1397. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
G. Houston Howard II of Howard, Dunn, Howard & Howard, Wetumpka, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Mary Ellen Forehand, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
David Randle was convicted of escape in the first degree on July 26, 1984. At his sentencing hearing, the State moved to invoke the Habitual Felony Offender Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-9, and pursuant thereto the State offered into evidence proof of Randle's four prior felony convictions. The trial court admitted the evidence of the convictions, granted the motion, and sentenced Randle to a mandatory term of life in prison pursuant to § 13A-5-9(c)(2).
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that two of the four convictions were improperly proven because they were not properly certified and, therefore, that they were erroneously admitted into evidence. The case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing.
On remand, a new sentencing hearing was held, and the State offered properly certified copies of the same two convictions. The trial court refused to consider these two convictions and sentenced Randle pursuant to § 13A-5-9(b)(2).
On return to remand, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that although the evidence of the two prior convictions was improperly admitted at the original sentencing hearing, Randle was on notice of their existence, and, therefore, he would not have been prejudiced by their reintroduction in proper form upon resentencing. 554 So.2d 1137. The court remanded the case again with directions as to resentencing.
This Court granted Randle's petition for writ of certiorari to consider whether the double jeopardy clauses of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Alabama of 1901 would prohibit the State, at resentencing, from offering evidence of prior convictions that it had failed to prove properly at the original sentencing hearing.
In a recent analogous case, Jackson v. State, [Ms. 3 Div. 538, June 30, 1987] (Ala.Crim.App.1987), cert. denied, [Ms. 86-1442, Jan. 8, 1988] (Ala.1988) (decision pending on return to remand), the State offered case action summaries as proof of prior convictions for the purpose of enhancement under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the admission of the case action summaries was improper and remanded the case for resentencing:
To continue reading
Request your trial