Holderfield v. State (Ex parte Holderfield), 1150165.
Decision Date | 01 July 2016 |
Docket Number | 1150165. |
Citation | 255 So.3d 743 |
Parties | EX PARTE Amanda HOLDERFIELD. (In re Amanda Holderfield v. State of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Brannon A. Jordan, Hunter Carmichael, and Kira Fonteneau of Community Law Office, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Andrew Brasher, deputy atty. gen., and Madeline H. Lewis, asst. atty. gen., for respondent.
This Court granted certiorari review to determine whether a motion to modify or set aside a restitution order in a criminal case should be treated as a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1, Ala. R.Crim. P., with regard to tolling the time for taking an appeal. We reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing the appeal in this case as untimely, and we remand the case for further proceedings.
Amanda Holderfield was convicted of second-degree assault. See Ala.Code 1975, § 13A–6–21. On April 7, 2015, Holderfield was sentenced to 60 months' imprisonment; that sentence was suspended, and Holderfield was ordered to serve 3 years' supervised probation, to undergo mental-health treatment and substance-abuse treatment, to pay $100 to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Fund, and to pay restitution of $2,219.99 to the "City of Gardendale Municipal Works Comp Fund." On May 6, 2015, Holderfield filed a "Motion to Set Aside Order of Restitution and Request Hearing." On June 15, 2015, the Jefferson Circuit Court denied Holderfield's motion to set aside the restitution order. Four days later, on June 19, Holderfield appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Holderfield's appeal, without an opinion. In its order dismissing the appeal, that court concluded that Holderfield's appeal was untimely because, it reasoned, (1) the motion to set aside the restitution order was not equivalent to a Rule 24.1 motion for a new trial and thus did not toll the time for filing an appeal and (2) the appeal was not filed within 42 days after entry of the restitution order.
This Court granted certiorari review to determine whether the filing of Holderfield's motion to set aside the restitution order tolled the time for filing an appeal.
"This Court reviews pure questions of law in criminal cases de novo." Ex parte Key, 890 So.2d 1056, 1059 (Ala.2003). See also Sheffield v. State, 890 So.3d 1056, 1059 (Ala.2014) ( ); Ex parte Walker, 152 So.3d 1247 (Ala.2014) (to same effect).
The issue in this case is whether a motion to modify or to set aside a restitution order is equivalent to a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1 with regard to tolling the time for filing an appeal.
Rule 4(b)(1), Ala. R.App. P., provides that a notice of appeal by a defendant in a criminal case must be filed within 42 days after the pronouncement of sentence. If a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1 is filed within 30 days after the pronouncement of sentence, the time for filing the notice of appeal is tolled; in that event, the notice of appeal must be filed within 42 days after the denial of the motion for a new trial.
In Ex parte Hitt, 778 So.2d 159 (Ala.2000), this Court noted that motions to amend or correct a sentence are governed by Rule 24, Ala. R.Crim. P., and that the filing of such a motion tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal. We stated in Hitt:
In Dixon v. State, 920 So.2d 1122, 1127 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), the Court of Criminal Appeals stated: "A motion to set aside or modify a sentence falls under the purview of Rule 24.4[, Ala. R.Crim. P.]." See also State v. Monette, 887 So.2d 314, 315 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) .
However, as Holderfield noted in her petition to this Court, precedents of the Court of Criminal Appeals on this point are conflicting. In its order dismissing Holderfield's appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals relied on two of its previous decisions— Holt v. State, 628 So.2d 1038 (Ala.Crim.App., 1993), and Martinez v. State, 602 So.2d 504 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) —both of which state that a motion to reconsider a sentence does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. We note that Holt and Martinez were decided before this Court's decision in Hitt and that the order of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case did not attempt to reconcile Holt and Martinez with Hitt or Dixon. See also Esters v. State, 894 So.2d 755, 758 n. 4 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (). The Dixon court noted the conflict identified in Esters and stated that the better approach is to treat a motion to amend a sentence as a motion governed by Rule 24.
We reaffirm our statement in Hitt that a motion to modify or to set aside a sentence is equivalent to a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1. If such a motion is filed within 30 days after pronouncement of sentence, it will toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
We similarly conclude that this tolling principle extends to motions to modify or to set aside a restitution order. A restitution hearing is a component of a criminal sentencing proceeding, and restitution is a component of the criminal defendant's punishment. See Hill v. Bradford, 565 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.1990) ; Ex parte Stewart, 74 So.3d 944, 950–51 (Ala.2011) ( ); Ala.Code 1975, § 15–18–67 (). Restitution may be ordered at the time a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, or it may be ordered at a later date.1 Although a restitution hearing may be held, or a restitution order entered, subsequent to the pronouncement of the other components of the sentence, see Hill, 565 So.2d at 210,2 when, as here, restitution is ordered when the remainder of the sentence is imposed, a motion to modify or to set aside that restitution is treated as a motion for a new trial under Rule 24.1.
We reverse the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissing Holderfield's appeal, and we remand the cause to that court for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
In light of this Court's language in Ex parte Stewart, 74 So.3d 944, 950–51 (Ala.2011), and Hill v. Bradford, 565 So.2d 208, 210 (Ala.1990), stare decisis compels me to concur with the statement in the majority opinion that restitution is a component of a criminal sentence. I, however, disagree with that principle. An order to serve a period of imprisonment and an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holderfield v. State
...of appeal and, thus, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Ex parte Holderfield, 255 So.3d 743 (Ala. 2016). Accordingly, we now address Holderfield's issues.First, Holderfield claims that the trial court abused its discretion when......
-
Jones v. Jones
... ... A ... State Court Proceedings ... On ... See Ex parte Hitt, 778 So.2d 159, 161-62 (Ala ... 2000); Ex parte Holderfield, 255 So.3d 743, 744-45 ... (Ala. 2016); Ala. R. Crim ... ...
-
Holloway v. Lockhart
... ... A ... State Court Proceedings ... On ... the motion is denied. See Ex parte Hitt, 778 So.2d ... 159, 161-62 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Holderfield, 255 ... So.3d 743, 744-45 (Ala. 2016); Ala. R. Crim ... ...
-
Love v. State
... ... Ex parte Holderfield , 255 So.3d 743, 745 (Ala ... 2016). "[R]estitution is ... ...