May v. State
| Decision Date | 26 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | CR-90-537 |
| Citation | 586 So.2d 56 |
| Parties | Sidney MAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joseph M. Powers, Mobile, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Sorrells, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Sidney May, was convicted, after a trial without a jury, of robbery in the third degree, in violation of § 13A-8-43(a)(1), Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to 25 years' imprisonment.
The appellant argues that he was improperly sentenced because the State failed to give him notice of intent to proceed under the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act prior to sentencing, as required by A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 6(b)(3)(ii). A.R.Cr.P. 26.6(b)(3)(ii) (formerly A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 6(b)(3)(ii)) states: "At a reasonable time prior to the hearing, the defendant shall be given notice of the prior conviction or convictions upon which the State intends to proceed." The first discussion of the Habitual Felony Offender Act occurred during the colloquy between the trial court and defense counsel that ensued when the trial court asked if there was any reason why judgment and sentence should not be imposed upon the appellant. The record is simply devoid of any evidence that the State gave notice to the appellant that it intended to proceed under the Habitual Felony Offender Act.
The appellate courts have recently held that "the Habitual Felony Offender Act cannot be applied if the defendant was not given proper notice before the first sentencing hearing." Jackson v. State, 566 So.2d 758, 760 (Ala.1990); see also Ex parte Williams, 510 So.2d 135 (Ala.1987); Hugley v. State, 581 So.2d 11 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Hayes v. State, 588 So.2d 502 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Although the appellant failed to object to the lack of notice at the sentencing hearing, such an objection is not required at the trial level in order to preserve that issue for appellate review "when a sentence is clearly illegal or is clearly not authorized by statute...." Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68, 68 (Ala.1989); see also Hugley v. State; Hayes v. State.
"Because the appellant did not receive notice of any prior felony conviction[s] before his first sentencing hearing, he should not have been sentenced as a habitual felony offender." Hugley v. State, 581 So.2d at 14 (citations omitted). "Upon resentencing, a trial court may consider, for purposes of the Habitual Felony Offender Act, only those prior convictions of which the defendant received proper notice." Id. at 14. Because the appellant did not receive notice of the state's intent to use any of his prior convictions, he must be resentenced as a first-time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. State
...for appellate review). The conflicting cases, holding that an objection is not necessary to preserve the issue are: May v. State, 586 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Ellison v. State, 593 So.2d 150, 152 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Hayes v. State, 588 So.2d 502, 506-07 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Smith v. Sta......
-
Bland v. State
...of Criminal Procedure, then the appellant can be sentenced only as a first-time offender. McConnell, supra. See also, May v. State, 586 So.2d 56 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). We affirm the conviction in this case; we remand the case for resentencing. A return shall be filed to this court within 45 day......
-
Knight v. State
...Habitual Felony Offender Act, the record does not reflect that the appellant received a copy of the presentence report." May v. State, 586 So.2d 56, 57 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). Here, as in May, the record does not indicate that a presentence report was received by the The appellant's 15-year sent......
-
Avery v. State
...is illegal, no objection is necessary to preserve the issue for review. Ex parte Brannon, 547 So.2d 68 (Ala.1989); May v. State, 586 So.2d 56 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). The appellant contends that Ex parte McCree, 554 So.2d 336 (Ala.1988), prevents the application of § 13A-5-6(a)(5) to his convicti......