Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 02 November 2007 |
Docket Number | CR-06-1357. |
Citation | 994 So.2d 950 |
Parties | Bruce Lavel JOHNSON v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Leonard F. Mikul, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Yvonne A.H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Bruce Lavel Johnson, was convicted of one count of transferring his legal residence without first submitting proper notice of his intent to move, in violation of the Community Notification Act1 ("the CNA"), a violation of § 15-20-23(a), Ala.Code 1975; one count of establishing a residence within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility, in violation of the CNA, a violation of § 15-20-26(a), Ala. Code 1975; and one count of establishing a residence or other living accommodation where a minor resided, in violation of the CNA, a violation of § 15-20-26(c), Ala. Code 1975. The trial court sentenced him, as a habitual offender, to serve concurrent terms of twelve years in prison on each count. See § 13A-5-9(b), Ala.Code 1975. The appellant filed post-trial motions, which the trial court summarily denied. This appeal followed.
The State presented evidence that, in 1991, the appellant pled guilty to first-degree sexual abuse; that the victim in that case was the appellant's ten-year-old niece; and that the appellant was required to register as a sex offender pursuant to the CNA. The State also presented evidence that sex offenders were required to register twice a year; that sex offenders cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school or child care facility; and that, before a sex offender can move, he must file notice of his intent to move with the appropriate law enforcement agency thirty days before he moves and have the new address approved. The State further presented evidence that the appellant had the address at 543 Era Drive approved in 1998 and that, on May 24, 2005, the appellant had filed a registration form that listed his address as 543 Era Drive. Craig Sawyer of the Fairhope Police Department testified that he had worked in the sex offender unit; that, in November 2005, the Baldwin County Sheriff's Department notified him that the appellant was no longer residing at his registered address on Era Drive; that he checked the appellant's records to determine whether he was supposed to be living on Era Drive; that the registration forms he had indicated that the appellant was registered on Era Drive; and that he also checked the Department of Public Safety's website, and it showed that the appellant was registered on Era Drive. He also testified that he went to the address on Era Drive, and he did not find a house marked as 543 Era Drive; that some of the houses on Era Drive had street numbers marked, but others did not; that none of the houses that had the street number marked were 543 Era Drive; and that the houses that did not have the street numbers marked were in a condition of disrepair, did not appear to be inhabited, and looked as if they had not been inhabited for some time.
Sawyer testified that he received information that indicated that the appellant had a new address on Mary's Lane; that he went to the address on Mary's Lane and knocked on the door; that the appellant answered the door; that he told the appellant he was there following up on the change of address; and that he asked the appellant where he was currently residing. He also testified that the appellant told him that he was living at the house on Mary's Lane; that he had moved to Mary's Lane in 2004 after Hurricane Ivan had damaged the house on Era Drive and made it uninhabitable; and that he had been living at Mary's Lane for the past year or more.
Sawyer testified that, when the appellant opened the door at the house on Mary's Lane, he could see inside; that he saw a female and at least two children sitting at a table eating a meal; that he saw toys, clothing, and other things on the living room floor; and that it appeared that the appellant, the female, and the children all lived at the house. Finally, he testified that the appellant's address on Mary's Lane was less than 2,000 feet from the Blessed Children Daycare and the Marietta Johnson Organic School.
(Appellant's brief at pp. 11-12.) However, he did not present this specific claim in his motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence. Henderson v. State, 715 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). Further, the appellant did not raise this specific argument in his post-trial motions. Therefore, it is not properly before this court.
The appellant also argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for establishing a residence or other living accommodation where a minor resided in violation of the CNA. (Issue III in the appellant's brief.) Specifically, he contends that the State did not prove that a minor actually resided in the residence.
Breckenridge v. State, 628 So.2d 1012, 1018 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...So.2d 895, 898 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (quoting Ward v. State, 610 So.2d 1190, 1191 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) ). See also Johnson v. State, 994 So.2d 950, 953–54 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). “A person is legally accountable for the behavior of another constituting a criminal offense if, with the intent to pr......
-
Johnson v. State
...a motion for a judgment of acquittal and raises specific grounds, he waives all other grounds not specified. E.g., Johnson v. State, 994 So.2d 950 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). Therefore, that portion of Johnson's claim was not preserved for review. Second, although the State argues that Johnson did......
-
Ex Parte Mullis
... ... See Foley v. Foley, 864 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) ... Although it did not so state in its written order, the trial court in this case explained its rationale for the alimony award and the division of the marital property at the ... ...
-
State v. Livingston
...charged in the indictment was completed at the time Livingston moved without notifying the proper authorities. See Johnson v. State, 994 So.2d 950 (Ala. Crim.App.2007). The issue before the trial court was whether the law to be applied was the law that was in existence at the time the offen......