Meadows v. State, CR-92-1170
Decision Date | 15 April 1994 |
Docket Number | CR-92-1170 |
Citation | 644 So.2d 1342 |
Parties | John Henry MEADOWS, Jr., alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Floyd Likins, Opelika, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Gregory O. Griffin, Sr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, John Henry Meadows, Jr., was indicted on two counts of shooting into an occupied dwelling. § 13A-11-61, Code of Alabama 1975. On November 17, 1992, a jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison on each count, those sentences to be served concurrently. The appellant also was ordered to pay restitution, attorney fees, and an amount to the victims' compensation fund.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in trying him in absentia. The record shows the following:
(R. 6-12.)
The Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure state that a defendant has a right to be present at arraignment and at every stage of the trial. A.R.Cr.P. 9.1. A defendant may waive the right to be present, however. A.R.Cr.P. 9.1(b). The rule sets out two ways the defendant's presence may be waived:
A.R.Cr.P. 9.1(b)(1)(i) and (ii).
The State argues that the appellant had notice of the time and place of his trial, but that he chose not to be present. The State also argues that the appellant's attorney had ample time to contact the appellant to inform him that his trial had been set. There is authority, however, for the proposition that a defendant cannot waive his right to be present by failure to appear unless he was present at the trial's commencement.
Our research has revealed no Alabama cases on point. In Flowers v. State, this Court dealt with a case in which the defendant was tried in absentia; however, the defendant had been present at the beginning of the trial, and then failed to return after a recess of the proceeding. In that case, we held that "a defendant who has been present for the beginning of the guilt adjudication stage of his trial and then voluntarily absents himself forfeits his right to be present for the remaining portions of his trial, including the sentencing stage, if sentencing immediately follows the verdict." Flowers v. State, 608 So.2d 764, 766 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (emphasis added).
The Committee Comments to Rule 9.1(b)(ii), which serve as persuasive authority, discuss the circumstances under which a defendant can validly waive his right to be present at trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pinkney v. State
...1139, 1141-42 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 979, 932, 113 S.Ct. 2979, 3062, 125 L.Ed.2d 676, 744 (1993); Meadows v. State, 644 So.2d 1342, 1345-46 (Ala.Crim.App.1994); Reece v. State, 325 Ark. 465, 467-68, 928 S.W.2d 334, 335-36 (1996); Jarrett v. State, 654 So.2d 973, 975 (Fla.Dist.C......
-
State v. Walker
...waiver only where the defendant who appears at the commencement of trial fails to appear during the trial); Meadows v. State, 644 So.2d 1342, 1345-46 (Ala.App.1994) (same applying state 12. The majority contends that Sainz does not require an evidentiary hearing. The Sainz court held that "......
-
Simpson v. State
...in the case of a minor misdemeanor, which by definition carries no threat of imprisonment." (Emphasis added.) In Meadows v. State, 644 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), this court considered whether a defendant charged with a felony could be tried in absentia if he was not present at the begi......
-
Thompson v. State
...present at the commencement of the trial before an implied waiver could be found are no longer necessarily valid. "In Meadows v. State, 644 So.2d 1342 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), this court considered whether a defendant charged with a felony could be tried in absentia if he was not present at the......
-
Washington Defendants' New Right of Pre-trial Flight
...1994); State v. Walker, No. 1994 CA00037, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 3069 (July 11, 1994) (unpublished opinion). But see Meadows v. State, 644 So. 2d 1342 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994) (finding Crosby persuasive in invalidating a trial commenced in absentia under the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure)......