Knight v. State
Decision Date | 22 January 1993 |
Docket Number | CR-91-1278 |
Citation | 623 So.2d 376 |
Parties | James Sheridan KNIGHT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Habib Yazdtchi, Montgomery, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gregory Griffin, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-17, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment, pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of receiving stolen property.
Section 13A-8-16, Code of Alabama 1975, provides the following definition for the offense of receiving stolen property:
Section 13A-8-17, Code of Alabama 1975, states:
The evidence presented by the State tended to show the following. Mr. James Roden testified that on July 29, 1991, he drove his 1985 Chevrolet Blazer vehicle to John Young Motor Company, located in Montgomery, Alabama, for repairs. Roden testified that on July 30, 1991, he was informed by the management at John Young Motors that his vehicle had been stolen from its car lot. Roden testified that he had paid $10,000 for the "used" vehicle. Grady Hicks, owner of Hicks Auto Parts Company, testified that he was at his place of business on Lower Wetumpka Road on the morning of July 29, 30, or 31, 1991, and that on one of those mornings, the appellant approached him, wanting to sell him some tires and rims. Hicks testified that the appellant was driving a 1985 Chevrolet Blazer. Hicks further testified that, after agreeing to buy the tires and rims, he became suspicious when the appellant presented what appeared to be a false identification card from the State of Florida. Hicks testified that he wrote the license number of the vehicle as the appellant drove away and that he called to check the number with the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department told him that the vehicle bearing that license number had been reported as stolen. Hicks testified that he identified the appellant from a photographic spread supplied by the Montgomery Sheriff's Department. Detective W.D. Ledford, of the Montgomery Sheriff's Department, testified that Mr. Hicks identified the appellant from a "mug book" as the driver of the 1985 Chevrolet Blazer that had been reported stolen by Mr. Roden. Officer Ledford further testified that the vehicle was found abandoned at a United States postal office in Montgomery.
In Berry v. State, 597 So.2d 730, 733-34 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), this court held:
See also Green v. State, 599 So.2d 631 (Ala.Cr.App.1991) (emphasis omitted).
Thus, the fact that the appellant was seen driving a recently stolen vehicle provided the jury with sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant of the charged offense.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the State failed to establish a proper venue for the charged offenses. The appellant's argument is without merit.
As stated in Part I of this opinion, James Roden testified that he owned a 1985 Chevrolet Blazer, which was stolen from the car lot of John Young Motors, in Montgomery, Alabama, and Grady Hicks testified that the appellant approached him at his place of business, Hicks Auto Parts, in Montgomery Alabama, in an attempt to sell him tires and rims.
In Avery v. State, 589 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), this court stated:
Here, the jury could reasonably infer from the testimony of James Roden and Grady Hicks that the crime occurred in Montgomery County, Alabama. Thus, venue was proper in Montgomery County.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for a mistrial based on the State's reference in its opening statement to charges filed against him subsequent to the charge for which he was being tried. This issue is not preserved for appellate review, however, because the appellant failed to obtain an adverse ruling at the trial level. Jackson v. State, 579 So.2d 43 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Bradley v. State, 577 So.2d 541 (Ala.Cr.App.1990).
The appellant argues that the trial court committed reversible error in sentencing him under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act because, he says, the State failed to give him notice, prior to sentencing, of its intent to proceed under the Act, as required by Rule 26.6(b)(3)(ii) and (iii), A.R.Cr.P. (formerly Rule 6(b)(3)(ii) and (iii), A.R.Cr.P.Temp.). This rule states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hulsey v. State
...by the appellant at trial unless the court below had issued a ruling adverse to the appellant on the motion. Knight v. State, 623 So.2d 376, 379 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).” Knight v. State, 936 So.2d 544, 546 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).Although Hulsey moved for a continuance and the trial court denied his......
-
Hulsey v. State
...by the appellant at trial unless the court below had issued a ruling adverse to the appellant on the motion. Knight v. State, 623 So. 2d 376, 379 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993)." Knight v. State, 936 So. 2d 544, 546 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). Although Hulsey moved for a continuance, and the trial court ......
-
Johnson v. State, No. CR-07-0965 (Ala. Crim. App. 3/20/2009)
...by the appellant at trial unless the court below has issued a ruling adverse to the appellant on the motion. Knight v. State, 623 So. 2d 376, 379 (Ala. Cr. App. 1993). It is the appellant's duty to preserve the record for appeal by invoking a ruling from the trial court. White [v. State], 5......
-
Franklin v. State
...by the appellant at trial unless the court below has issued a ruling adverse to the appellant on the motion. Knight v. State, 623 So.2d 376, 379 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). It is the appellant's duty to preserve the record for appeal by invoking a ruling from the trial court. White [v. State], 589 S......