Harrison v. State
Decision Date | 25 April 2003 |
Parties | Brian Heath HARRISON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Dewayne M. Beesley, Monroeville, for appellant.
William H. Pryor, Jr., atty. gen., and John M. Porter, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Alabama Supreme Court 1021682.
The appellant, Brian Heath Harrison, was convicted of discharging a firearm into an unoccupied vehicle, a violation of § 13A-11-61(a), Ala.Code 1975. The trial court sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to serve a term of twenty-five years in prison. See § 13A-5-9(b)(1), Ala.Code 1975. The appellant filed a "Motion for Judgment of Acquittal or in the Alternative, Motion for New Trial or Arrest of Judgment," and the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion. However, the motion was subsequently denied by operation of law. See Rule 24.4, Ala. R.Crim. P. This appeal followed.
Poole, 846 So.2d at 375. Therefore, the pretrial notice provision set forth in Poole does not apply to the Habitual Felony Offender Act.
Moreover, Rule 26.6(b)(3)(ii), Ala. R.Crim. P., simply requires that the State give a defendant notice of the prior conviction or convictions upon which it intends to rely at a reasonable time before the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the State was not required to give the appellant pretrial notice of its intent to enhance his sentence pursuant to the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Accordingly, the trial court properly sentenced the appellant as a habitual offender.
The appellant also argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a continuance. Specifically, he contends that the trial court should have granted the motion so he could employ a ballistics expert who allegedly would have supported his claim that the gun accidentally discharged.
Woodson v. State, 794 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).
In his motion for a continuance, the appellant alleged only that he "intend[ed] to employ a ballistics expert to testify in this case." (C.R. 19.) However, he did not make any showing as to what evidence the ballistics expert would present or that such evidence would be material to his case. Also, he did not show that he had exercised due diligence to obtain a ballistics expert. Therefore, the trial court properly denied the appellant's motion for a continuance.
(C.R. 1.) In Sullens v. State, 878 So.2d 1216, 1220-28 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), we addressed a similar contention as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woolf v. State
...race-neutral reasons will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous." ' " Harris, 2 So.3d at 899 (quoting Harrison v. State, 879 So.2d 594, 607 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (quoting in turn Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d [184] at 190 [ (Ala.1987) ] )). " ' "A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when a......
-
Martin v. State
...race-neutral reasons will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.” ’ ” Harris, 2 So.3d at 899 (quoting Harrison v. State, 879 So.2d 594, 607 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (quoting in turn Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d at 190)). “ ‘ “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous' when although there is evide......
-
Sharp v. State
...race-neutral reasons will not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.’ ” ' Harris, 2 So.3d at 899 (quoting Harrison v. State, 879 So.2d 594, 607 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (quoting in turn Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d [184] at 190 [ (Ala.1987) ] )). ‘ “ ‘A finding is “clearly erroneous” when a......
-
Harris v. State
...it is clearly erroneous. K.S. v. Carr, 618 So.2d 707, 710 (Ala.1993), citing Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d at 622.'" Harrison v. State, 879 So.2d 594, 607 (Ala. Crim.App.2003), quoting Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d 184, 190 (Ala. 1997). "The trial court is in a better position than the appellate ......
-
Standard of Review: Pesky Requirement or Powerful Tool?
...17. Legal Sufficiency of an Indictment: The legal sufficiency of an indictment is reviewed under a de novo standard. Harrison v. State, 879 So. 2d 594, 603 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). 18. Motion for Change of Venue: A trial court's ruling on a motion for a change of venue is reviewed under an a......