Miliner v. State, 7 Div. 839
Decision Date | 04 August 1981 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 839 |
Citation | 414 So.2d 133 |
Parties | Wayne MILINER, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
H. Keith Pitts, Gadsden, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Michael Horsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree and unlawful possession of controlled substances. He was sentenced to twelve years in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently.
The record reveals that the trial judge explained to the appellant his privilege against self-incrimination, his right to a trial by jury, his right to confront his accusers, the nature of the charges, and the acts sufficient to constitute the offenses, according to the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
However, an accused must also be informed of the minimum and maximum possible sentence for his offense as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to acceptance of a guilty plea. Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 277 So.2d 896 (1973). The record reveals that on the matter of the possible range of punishment for robbery in the third degree the following occurred:
"THE COURT: Now, do you understand that in this Robbery, Third Degree--
As I understand it, you have previous convictions, is that correct?
Based on appellant's admission that he had previously been convicted of three or more felonies, it is clear that he was subject to the provisions of § 13A-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975 (The Habitual Felony Offender Act). That section mandates:
"In all cases when it is shown that a criminal defendant has been previously convicted of any felony and after such conviction has committed another felony, he must be punished as follows ...." [Emphasis added]
Here appellant's admission of the prior convictions provides the "showing" necessary for § 13A-5-9, supra. It is our judgment, moreover, that whenever the district attorney has knowledge of a defendant's prior convictions, he must, as an officer of the court, "show" those convictions to the court, so that the trial judge can sentence the accused in accordance with the clear mandate of the recidivist statute. In other words, we do not believe the prosecution has any discretion about whether or not to "show" the prior convictions; if he is aware of the accused's record he must apprise the court of that fact.
In the present case it is clear that appellant's attorney, the district attorney, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coulter v. State, 8 Div. 673
...certified copies of the judgments of the Georgia convictions. Donahay v. State, supra; Nilson v. State, supra; Miliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476 As part of appellant's former testimony introduced to prove the prior Georgia convictions, the......
-
Jones v. White
...that a prosecutor must inform the sentencing court of prior felony convictions of which the prosecutor is aware. Miliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133, 135 (Ala.Crim.App.1981).25 The phrase "when it is shown" that a convicted defendant has previous felony convictions in the HFOA has been interpre......
-
Rickett v. Jones
...HFOA. Under Alabama law, the "provisions [of the HFOA] are absolutely mandatory and are not discretionary." Miliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133, 135 (Ala.Crim.App.1981), cert. denied, 414 So.2d 133 (Ala.1982), overruled in part on other grounds, Ex parte Williams, 510 So.2d 135, 136 (Ala.1987).......
-
Faircloth v. State, 8 Div. 8
...Peoples v. State, 415 So.2d 1230 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Crittenden v. State, 414 So.2d 476, 482 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Miliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133, 135 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Lyner v. State, 398 So.2d 420 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). See also Donahay v. State, 287 Ala. 716, 718, 255 So.2d 599 (1971). We have......