LUCAS v. State of Ala.
Decision Date | 18 December 2009 |
Docket Number | CR-08-0575. |
Parties | Adam Dwayne LUCAS v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Raymond Waits III, Decatur, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and Stephen N. Dodd, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Adam Dwayne Lucas, was convicted of two counts of robbery in the first degree, violations of § 13A-8-41, Ala.Code 1975. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 20 years in prison for each count.
The State's evidence tended to show the following. On January 1, 2007, Daniel DeQuesada, a pizza-delivery driver, was robbed by a black man wearing a hooded jacket and a ski mask. DeQuesada testified that the man pointed a gun at him and ordered him to surrender his money. Diana Horsewood testified that when she was delivering pizzas on January 2, 2007, a black man wearing a hooded jacket and ski mask robbed her. She testified that the robber pointed a gun at her. Neither could identify Lucas as the person who robbed them, although both said that the individual who robbed them was driving a sport-utility vehicle (“SUV”).
David Shutt, a Decatur police officer, testified that on January 3, 2007, Lucas reported that his vehicle, a pewter-colored SUV, had been stolen. The vehicle was later recovered after suspects in a home invasion abandoned the vehicle while being pursued by police. Pieces of a toy gun were recovered from the vehicle.
Investigator Greg Pinkard of the Franklin County Sheriff's Department testified that Lucas admitted that he and his codefendant, Ira Harris, had robbed two pizza-delivery drivers.
The jury convicted Lucas of two counts of robbery in the first degree. At Lucas's sentencing hearing, the circuit court made the following findings of fact:
(R. 358-59.)
The only issue Lucas raises on appeal is whether the circuit court erred when it applied the firearm-enhancement statute, § 13A-5-6(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975, to enhance his sentence for robbery because, he asserts, the gun he used in the robberies was a toy gun and not a “firearm or deadly weapon.” He relies on Sanders v. State, 947 So.2d 432 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), and Snowden v. State, 842 So.2d 24 (Ala.Crim.App.2002), to support his argument.
Section 13A-8-41, Ala.Code 1975, defines robbery in the first degree, and provides:
“(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the first degree if he violates Section 13A-8-43 and he:
“(1) Is armed with a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument; or
“....
“(b) Possession then and there of an article used or fashioned in a manner to lead any person who is present reasonably to believe it to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or any verbal or other representation by the defendant that he is then and there so armed, is prima facie evidence under subsection (a) of this section that he was so armed.”
Section 13A-8-43, Ala.Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:
“(a) A person commits the crime of robbery in the third degree if in the course of committing a theft he:
“(1) Uses force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to overcome his physical resistance or physical power of resistance; or
“(2) Threatens the imminent use of force against the person of the owner or any person present with intent to compel acquiescence to the taking of or escaping with the property.”
Section 13A-5-6(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975, often referred to as the firearm-enhancement statute, provides:
“For a Class A felony in which a firearm or deadly weapon was used or attempted to be used in the commission of the felony, or a Class A felony criminal sex offense involving a child as defined in Section 15-20-21(5), [the sentence shall be] not less than 20 years.”
Subsection (a)(4), Ala.Code 1975, was added by an amendment to § 13A-5-6 in 1981. In amending this statute, the legislature wrote that its purpose was “[t]o amend Section 13A-5-6, Code of Alabama 1975, relating to sentences of imprisonment for felonies, so as to set the penalty for using or attempting to use a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony.” Title to Act No. 81-840, Ala. Acts 1981.
Section 13A-5-6, Ala.Code 1975, does not define a firearm or deadly weapon. However, “firearm” is defined in § 13A-8-l(4), Ala.Code 1975, as: “A weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.” “Deadly weapon” is defined in § 13A-l-2(7), Ala.Code 1975, as:
In examining the above statutes, we keep in mind the following principles of statutory construction:
“
Ex parte Soto, 991 So.2d 691, 692 (Ala.2008).
Berard v. State, 402 So.2d 1044, 1050 (Ala.Crim.App.1980).
As stated above, Lucas relies on Sanders and Snowden to support his argument. In Sanders, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree and his sentence was enhanced pursuant to § 13A-5-6(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975. The testimony at trial showed that Sanders entered a Texaco Food Mart, put his hand under his shirt with his finger sticking out so it appeared that he had a gun, and demanded $200. We held that the circuit court incorrectly applied § 13A-5-6(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975. It was undisputed that the victim could clearly see that Sanders was not armed with a gun but was using his finger to mimic a weapon. In Snowden, this Court held that a Rule 32 petitioner's claim that he merely stated that he was armed during the robbery, when in fact he was not, required a remand to the trial court for specific findings of fact. We stated:
Our research revealed few Alabama cases that address the scope of § 13A-5-6(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975. See Ex parte McCree, 554 So.2d 336 (Ala.1988) ( ); Sorrells v. State, 667 So.2d 142, 144 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) ( ); Hammond v. State, 497 So.2d 558 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) ( ). Indeed, our research has revealed no case that specifically holds that using a toy gun during a robbery necessitates the application of the firearm-enhancement statute.
In determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for robbery in the first degree, we look to the victim's perceptions:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ware v. State (Ex parte Ware)
...by her hand coming in contact with Ware's back pocket while he was raping her.Justice Shaw includes a quote from Lucas v. State, 45 So.3d 380 (Ala.Crim.App.2009), that references cases in which the victim had a reasonable belief concerning the object or article found to be a deadly weapon o......
-
Conner v. State (Ex parte Conner)
...a deadly weapon to be convicted of robbery in the first degree”). For an analysis of this problem, see Lucas v. State, 45 So.3d 380, 394–98 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (Welch, J., dissenting).6 Justice Shaw's special concurrence notes that we do not have the jury instructions before us or the actua......
-
Conner v. State (In re Conner), 1130650
...be armed with a deadly weapon to be convicted of robbery in the first degree"). For an analysis of this problem, see Lucas v. State, 45 So. 3d 380, 394-98 (Ala. Crim. App. 2009) (Welch, J., dissenting). 6. Justice Shaw's special concurrence notes that we do not have the jury instructions be......
-
Conner v. Stewart
...a 'deadly weapon' or 'dangerous instrument,' but that he or she also 'reasonably ... believed' this to be true"); Lucas v. State, 45 So.3d 380, 384 (Ala.Crim.App. 2009) ("In a prosecution for first degree robbery, the robbery victim does not actually have to see a weapon to establish the el......