Luker v. State, 1 Div. 327
Decision Date | 08 June 1982 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 327 |
Parties | John David LUKER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Michael E. Box, Saraland, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Jan A. Wade, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
John David Luker was convicted in the Circuit Court of Mobile County on July 31, 1975, for possession of controlled substances, and was sentenced to 30 years. The conviction was affirmed by this court in Luker v. State, 344 So.2d 1219 (Ala.Cr.App.); writ quashed, 344 So.2d 1224 (Ala.1977).
The trial court, pursuant to the drug recidivist statute, sentenced appellant to 30 years because of his prior narcotics convictions. The indictment under which he was tried did not aver any prior narcotics convictions. Consequently, appellant contends that the maximum sentence he could have received was 15 years.
On January 13, 1981, appellant, who was then serving his sentence in Holman Prison, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Escambia County. The petition was transferred to the Mobile County Circuit Court on April 28, 1981. Upon a hearing held on September 16, 1981, the petition was denied. Hence this appeal.
In his petition in the habeas corpus proceedings, the appellant contends that the sentence he received exceeded that permitted by law because the prior drug offenses were not alleged in the indictment or proved at the trial.
In appellant's direct appeal (Luker, supra, at page 1224), this court held:
"...
Thus, the trial court's sentencing jurisdiction was clearly established and became the law of the case. Even if errors existed in the judgment, which we do not concede, habeas corpus is not the proper remedy where the trial court's jurisdiction is clearly established.
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to replace a writ of error or an appeal. The writ cannot be used to correct errors in a judgment if the jurisdiction of the court rendering the judgment is without question. The writ is against void, but not irregular or voidable, judgments. Hable v. State, 41 Ala.App. 398, 132 So.2d 271 (1961). Habeas corpus does not serve the office of appeal. Greer v. State, 49 Ala.App. 36, 268 So.2d 502 (1972).
The drug recidivist statute, Section 20-2-76(a), Code of Alabama, 1975, formerly Title 22, Section 258(53), Code of Alabama, 1940, provides "Any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this chapter may be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that otherwise authorized or both."
While the quoted statute contains no language suggesting that the prior offense must be alleged in the indictment and proved at trial, this court has considered that issue in several prior cases.
In Funches v. State, 56 Ala.App. 22, 318 So.2d 762 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 294 Ala. 757, 318 So.2d 768 (1975), it was held:
"In order to make operative Title 22, Section 258(53)(a)(b), supra, evidence of a former conviction is not admissible unless it is alleged in the indictment and proof offered in support thereof."
In Napier v. State, 344 So.2d 1235 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 344 So.2d 1239 (Ala.1977), this court observed:
"We hold that it is proper for an indictment for an offense in violation of the Uniform Alabama Controlled Substances Act to contain the averment that the defendant has heretofore been convicted of an offense under the act."
In Luttrell v. State, 357 So.2d 1021 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), it was held:
Also, in Kidd v. State, 398 So.2d 349 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 353 (Ala.1981), this court held:
"It is reasonably clear from Napier, supra, and from Funches v. State, 56 Ala.App. 22, 318 So.2d 762, cert. denied, 294 Ala. 757, 318 So.2d 768 (1975), that when the State wishes to bring a defendant under the ambit of Section 20-2-76 the prior conviction must be alleged in the indictment and later proven at trial."
The thrust of appellant's contention is based on Luttrell, supra, and Kidd, supra, both of which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harrison v. State, 4 Div. 371
...for the defendant's sentence to be enhanced under that statute. See Tyree v. Hendrix, 480 So.2d 1176, 1178 (Ala.1985); Luker v. State, 424 So.2d 662, 664 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), both cases holding that, in order to invoke the recidivist provisions of the Alabama Controlled Substances Act, "the a......
-
Tyree v. State
...Nevertheless, no error was committed in alleging the prior conviction and admitting proof thereof at trial. In Luker v. State, 424 So.2d 662 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), this court reviewed its previous decisions on the above issue and held "that the prior offense may be alleged in the indictment, in......
-
Tyree v. Hendrix
...cert. denied, 294 Ala. 757, 318 So.2d 768 (1975). All of these cases had been decided before Tyree's plea. See also Luker v. State, 424 So.2d 662 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), cert. quashed, 424 So.2d 662 (Ala.1983), clarifying the above-cited cases and holding that the averment of the prior drug of......
-
Canada v. State, 7 Div. 896
...the indictment prior conviction of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act to make operative Section 20-2-76, Code 1975. See Luker v. State, 424 So.2d 662 (Ala.Cr.App.). We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED. All the Judges concur. ...