Lovell v. State, 7 Div. 352
| Decision Date | 23 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 352 |
| Citation | 477 So.2d 485 |
| Parties | Ronald P. LOVELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Harvey B. Campbell, Jr., Talladega, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Alexandra Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Ronald P. Lovell was convicted by a jury of burglary in the first degree and was sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment. On appeal he raises two issues.
Lovell contends that his constitutional rights were violated when a year passed between the date of his conviction and the date of his sentencing. Four factors must be considered in determining whether the accused was denied a speedy trial. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The factors are (1) length of the delay, (2) reason for the delay, (3) assertion of the right, and (4) prejudice to the accused.
(1)
Mere passage of time, without more, does not amount to denial of a speedy trial. Noe v. State, 391 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). The time between conviction on June 20, 1983 and sentencing on August 20, 1984, was 14 months.
(2)
Mr. Lovell was in federal custody until August 1, 1984. A deputy district attorney testified to the state's attempts and efforts to get Mr. Lovell back to Alabama. The witness testified that he participated in trying to secure Lovell's return through the Interstate Agreement on Detainers or Incaration from a federal correctional institution in Memphis, Tennessee. The witness testified that after Lovell's conviction in Clay County, Alabama, Lovell was charged and tried or pleaded guilty and testified in a trial in federal court. He was sentenced in federal court and incarcerated in the federal correctional institution at Memphis. A detainer was filed against Lovell under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. Also the State of Alabama filed a "Form Five," which is a "Prosecutor's Request for Temporary Custody." This request, together with a cover letter, was forwarded to Mr. John Fenello, as Administrative Systems Manager of the Federal Correctional Institution at Memphis. The district attorney and the circuit judge both signed the Prosecutor's Request for Temporary Custody of Lovell and submitted another letter to prove the agent's authority to act for the receiving state. The same was sent to Mrs. Betty Taylor, an administrator in the Alabama Department of Corrections. Mrs. Taylor promptly signed and returned the letter to permit Sheriff Morris to use it as evidence of his authority when he picked up Mr. Lovell.
The person sought to be returned is allowed 30 days to file an appeal in federal district court or to note an objection to the request with the Federal Correctional Institution in Memphis. After that time had expired, then Sheriff Morris did, in fact, go to Memphis and bring Mr. Lovell back for sentencing. In the meantime, the sentencing hearing had been continued from time to time on motion of the state. A short continuance just before sentencing was on the motion of the accused.
(3)
Assertion of the right to speedy trial was made by Lovell, it appears, for the first time on July 20, 1984. The appellant moved to dismiss this case for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buchannon v. State
...contrary result in Henry v. State, 448 So.2d 432 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); and Lovell v. State, 477 So.2d 485 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Reducing these three cases to the simplest of terms, Henry stands for the proposition that the mere taking of a gun rend......
-
Haywood v. State, 6 Div. 911
...514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The mere passage of time does not amount to the denial of a speedy trial. Lovell v. State, 477 So.2d 485 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Noe v. State, 391 So.2d 151 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). This court said in one particular case that despite a delay between indictmen......
-
Evans v. State
...Appeals in Henry v. State, [448 So.2d 432 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) ], Bates v. State, [468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) ], and Lovell v. State, [477 So.2d 485 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) ].... "The fact that Pardue armed himself with a deadly weapon while in the dwelling brings him within the purview of § 13......
-
Pardue v. State
...relies on Henry v. State, 448 So.2d 432 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Bates v. State, 468 So.2d 207 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); and Lovell v. State, 477 So.2d 485 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). Those cases, which held that the taking of a firearm during a burglary would suffice to support a first-degree burglary con......