Heath v. State
| Decision Date | 28 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 372 |
| Citation | 485 So.2d 1226 |
| Parties | Larry Wayne HEATH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas M. Semmes, Anniston, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and George Hardesty, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appellant was found guilty by a jury of a violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, in that he was in possession of cocaine, for which the jury assessed a fine of $15,000. At a duly conducted sentencing hearing, after appropriate notice was given by the State that the State would proceed against him under the Habitual Felony Offender Act, the court fixed punishment at imprisonment for forty years and sentenced defendant accordingly.
The appellant is represented by the same attorney who represented him on the trial of the case, who has filed a brief in behalf of appellant, by which he seeks to reverse the judgment of conviction and sentence and in which he presents five issues for our consideration. In addition to the brief of counsel, we have for our consideration a pro se brief, in which appellant argues, as does his attorney in his brief, that the evidence was insufficient to justify a conviction. In appellant's pro se brief, the position is also taken to the effect that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel, which contention we will discuss after we have discussed the issues on appeal as to which appellant and his counsel are in agreement. In doing so, we will endeavor, of course, to give due consideration also to the brief of the appellee's counsel.
The position is taken in the brief of counsel for appellant and in appellant's pro se brief that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict that defendant was in possession of cocaine. In neither brief is the contention made that the substance which defendant was charged with possessing was not proved to be cocaine, it having been shown by the testimony of expert witnesses that it was, particularly the testimony of Mr. Ronald D. Hubbard, a forensic laboratory analyst and drug chemist with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, from whose testimony we quote the following:
According to the testimony of witnesses called by the State, the substance determined to be cocaine was found in the execution of a search warrant upon the residence of one that they thought was Garfield Heath, a brother of defendant, but which Alvea Marie Gray, a witness for defendant, was occupying and apparently was in charge of at the time of the search, and at which time several other persons were present. We quote the following parts of the testimony of Alvea Marie Gray:
On cross-examination by the State, the witness testified in part as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perry v. State
...no facts pertaining to this matter, there is nothing to be reviewed. Dossey v. State, 489 So.2d 662 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Heath v. State, 485 So.2d 1226 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Thomas v. State, 447 So.2d 203 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). IV The appellant argues that the admission of D.N.A. fingerprinting, or ......
-
Levett v. State
...reliability was adequately shown by the fact that other information he provided had led to four or five arrests. See Heath v. State, 485 So.2d 1226, 1234 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (information which led to three arrests satisfied reliability inquiry); Keller v. State, 54 Ala.App. 127, 129-30, 305 S......
-
Rawls v. State
...the contraband located throughout the house, and the fact that the regular occupant of the house was out of the state); Heath v. State, 485 So.2d 1226 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (evidence that defendant was in room in which cocaine was found during search of residence of defendant's brother presen......
-
Billingsley v. State, CR-90-692
...Likewise, the ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim should have been raised in a motion for a new trial. Heath v. State, 485 So.2d 1226 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Where an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is raised for the first time on direct appeal, this court cannot determine the ......