Gullatt v. City of Hoover
Decision Date | 23 October 1984 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 521 |
Parties | Charles Wren GULLATT v. CITY OF HOOVER. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James S. Lloyd of Lloyd, Ennis & Lloyd, Birmingham, for appellant.
Ann Z. Arnold of Harrison & Jackson, Birmingham, for appellee.
Charles Wren Gullatt appeals from a second conviction of DUI (driving under influence) in circuit court, contrary to the provisions of § 32-5A-191, Code of Alabama 1975 as amended. The trial court sentenced the appellant to two days in jail, fined him $500 plus court costs and directed that his license be suspended for one year.
A stipulation was entered between the parties for inclusion in the record and the same is herein set forth: (R. 15-16).
Appellant asserts that the prior conviction had in Municipal Court on September 5, 1979, may not be constitutionally used to enhance punishment in this cause because the appellant was not represented by counsel nor did he knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel in that case.
In Highsmith v. State, 55 Ala.App. 272, 314 So.2d 874 (1975), this court followed the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967), which requires, that in using a prior conviction to enhance punishment, it must be established that the accused either waived counsel or was represented by counsel at the time of such prior offense. This requirement dealt with use of felony convictions to enhance punishment in subsequent proceedings.
However, such requirement has been extended to probation revocations involving a DWI conviction. Hollingsworth v. State, 410 So.2d 133 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. quashed, 410 So.2d 134 (Ala.1982). Hollingsworth, supra, relies upon Burgett v. Texas, supra, and Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980) and Highsmith v. State, supra.
The record in the case at bar is readily distinguishable from Baldasar, supra, and Hollingsworth, supra.
The minute entry of the 1979 conviction which was stipulated into evidence [see McDaniel v. State, 397 So.2d 237 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 397 So.2d 239 (Ala.1981) and Kemp v. State, 434 So.2d 298 (Ala.Crim.App.1983) ], clearly establishes that appellant was offered counsel and waived counsel. This waiver affirmatively appears in the handwriting on the bench notes by Judge Peter A. Hall. The record in the case at bar is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bilbrey v. State, 1 Div. 405
...to use the prior D.U.I. conviction for enhancement purposes as provided by §§ 32-5A-191(d) and (e). The court, in Gullatt v. City of Hoover, 459 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), intimated, by citing Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980), that, to use a prior......
-
Robinson v. State
...statement is checked: "Defendant informed of right to counsel, voluntarily waived counsel." C.R. 23. In Gullatt v. City of Hoover, 459 So.2d 1006, 1007 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), this Court "The minute entry of the 1979 conviction [for DUI in municipal court] ... clearly establishes that appellant ......
-
Johnson v. State, 5 Div. 422
...a separate petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed in the court wherein the prior conviction took place. Gullat v. City of Hoover, 459 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The record does not reflect that the State violated the discovery order or that the State failed to give notice o......
-
Jett v. State
...that the Armstrong "written statement" requirement cannot be satisfied by mere reference to the transcript itself. v. City of Hoover, 459 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), this fact may be established by reference to the handwritten bench notes of the trial court judge showing waiver of counsel......