Minnifield v. State

• Decision Date: 26 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. CR-04-0171.,CR-04-0171.
• Parties: Lasalle MINNIFIELD v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1000

941 So.2d 1000

Lasalle MINNIFIELD v. STATE of Alabama.

No. CR-04-0171.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 26, 2005.

Rehearing Denied October 14, 2005.

Certiorari Denied May 5, 2006.

Alabama Supreme Court 1050138.

Alaric Olaf May, Birmingham, for appellant.

Troy King, atty. gen., and Nancy M. Kirby, deputy atty. gen., for appellee.

SHAW, Judge.

Lasalle Minnifield appeals the circuit court's denial of what he styled as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he attacked his 1980 conviction for rape and his resulting sentence of 50 years' imprisonment.¹ This Court affirmed Minnifield's conviction and sentence on direct appeal without an opinion on October 28, 1980. See Minnifield v. State, (No. 6 Div. 362). This Court issued a certificate of judgment on November 17, 1980.

Minnifield filed the present petition on August 3, 2004. In his petition, Minnifield claimed (1) that the indictment was void because, he said, it did not include the phrase "against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama"; (2) that the indictment was void because, he said, it did not state the time or place of the offense; (3) that the indictment was void because, he said, it did not charge an offense; and (3) that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because, he said, he was entitled to jury sentencing pursuant to Title 14, § 395, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958).² After receiving a response from the State, the circuit court, properly treating Minnifield's petition as a Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition for post-conviction relief, conducted evidentiary hearings on September 9, 2004, October 4, 2004, and October 15, 2004. The circuit court then denied the petition on October 20, 2004.

I.

Before addressing the claims in Minnifield's petition, we first address Minnifield's argument regarding the law in effect at the time of his crime. Citing Hogan v. State, 748 So.2d 222 (Ala.Crim. App. 1999), Minnifield argues that Act No. 77-607, Ala. Acts 1977, adopting the Alabama Criminal Code now codified in Title 13A and repealing former Title 13, Ala.Code 1975, took effect May 16, 1978; that his crime occurred after May 16, 1978; and that, therefore, his case is governed by Title 13A. We disagree.

It is well settled that the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense controls the prosecution. See Davis v. State, 571 So.2d 1287, 1289 (Ala. Crim.App. 1990) ("A defendant's sentence is determined by the law in effect at the time of the commission of the offense."); Hardy v. State, 570 So.2d 871 (Ala.Crim. App. 1990) (unless otherwise stated in the statute, the law in effect at the time the offense was committed controls the offense); and Jefferson v. City of Birmingham, 399 So.2d 932 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981) (law in effect at the time of the offense governs prosecution). A review of the transcript from Minnifield's trial³ reveals that the incident giving rise to the rape charge in this case was committed on June 18, 1979. Therefore, we must determine what law was in effect on June 18, 1979.

Act No. 20, Ala. Acts 1977, adopted the 1975 Alabama Code. That Act was passed by the Legislature in February 1977, and became effective in October 1977. See, e.g., Ex parte Coker, 575 So.2d 43 (Ala. 1990), and Ex parte Beverly, 497 So.2d 519 (Ala. 1986). Act No. 20 included former Title 13, Ala.Code 1975, including §§ 13-1-130 and 13-1-131, dealing with rape,⁴ which were essentially recodifications of Title 14, §§ 395 and 396, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recompiled 1958).

Act No. 77-607, Ala. Acts 1977, commonly referred to as the Alabama Criminal Code and codified in Title 13A, was also passed by the Legislature in 1977; it was approved by the Governor on May 16, 1977. Sections 9901 and 9902 of that Act repealed various provisions of former Title 13, including §§ 13-1-130 and 13-1-131. Section 9910 of that Act established the effective date of the Act as May 16, 1978. However, on January 10, 1978, at the regular session of the legislature, House Bill ("H.B.") 10, was introduced as follows: "To amend Section 9910 of Act No. 607, S. 33, 1977 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature, commonly known as the `Alabama Criminal Code' so as to delay the effective date one additional year." Vol. 1, p. 9, House Journal, 1978 Regular Session. On April 5, 1978, H.B. 10 was amended to substitute June 1, 1979, as the effective date of the Act. See Vol. II, House Journal, 1978 Regular Session. The Alabama Senate approved a substituted version of H.B. 10, establishing the June 1, 1979, effective date and amending several other sections of Act No. 77-607. See Vol. III, pp. 2574-89, House Journal, 1978 Regular Session. H.B. 10 was passed by the Legislature as Act No. 78-770, Ala. Acts 1978, and the Governor approved that Act on May 2, 1978. In 1979, the Legislature passed Act No. 79-125, Ala. Acts 1979, which the Governor approved on May 29, 1979. That Act further amended Section 9910 of Act No. 607, Ala. Acts 1977, to change the effective date of the Act from June 1, 1979, to January 1, 1980. See Act. No. 79-125, Ala. Acts 1979, Vol. I, p. 230 ("To further amend Section 9910 of Act No. 607, S. 33 of the 1977 Regular Session (Acts 1977, Vol. II, p. 812), as amended, so as to further provide for the effective date."). See also Vol. I, House and Senate Journals, 1979 Regular Session.

Act No. 78-770, Ala. Acts 1978, postponed the effective date of Act No. 77-607, Ala. Acts 1977, from May 16, 1978, to June 1, 1979, and Act No. 79-125, Ala. Acts 1979, further postponed the effective date from June 1, 1979, to January 1, 1980, at which time Act No. 77-607, Ala. Acts 1977, went into effect. Although this Court stated in Hogan that Act No. 77-607 became effective on May 16, 1978, and, thus, that §§ 13-1-130 through -136, Ala.Code 1975, were repealed on that date, that statement was erroneous, and to the extent that Hogan is inconsistent with this opinion, it is hereby overruled.⁵

We note our disagreement with Judge Baschab's special writing, in which she questions the propriety of looking to the House and Senate Journals to ascertain legislative intent, points out that there are no quotation marks in Act No. 78-770 before the reference to § 9910 and after the reference to the June 1, 1979, effective date, and then concludes that § 9910, as referenced in Act No. 78-770, established the effective date of Act No. 78-770 rather than the effective date of Act No. 77-607. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature in enacting the statute. See the cases collected at 45 Ala. Digest 2d Statutes § 181(1) (1995). In Henry v. McCormack Bros. Motor Car Co., 232 Ala. 196, 167 So. 256 (1936), the Alabama Supreme Court stated:

"There are recognized canons of statutory construction that will be observed. In construing statutes, they are: (1) `Where the language of a statute is clear and the intent obvious, there is no room for construction; but where the meaning and intent are not obvious the court must attempt to arrive at the legislative intent.' City of Birmingham v. Southern Express Co., 164 Ala. 529, 51 So. 159, headnote 1 [(1909)].(2) The legislative intent will be sought from the whole subject, where the language is not clear or obvious. Hamilton et al. v. Pullman Car & Mfg. Corporation of Alabama (Ala.Sup.) 163 So. 329 [(1935)]; Davis v. State ex rel. County Board of Equalization of Cherokee County, 16 Ala.App. 397, 78 So. 313 [(1918)].(3) In determining the intent and purpose of an enactment, courts will look to the context and all of its provisions, and, if possible, give the act effect according to the legislative intent so expressed. Edwards v. Doster-Northington Drug Co., 214 Ala. 640, 108 So. 862 [(1926)]; Armstrong v. Sellers et al., 182 Ala. 582, 62 So. 28 [(1913)].(4) Any apparent mistakes in the wording of the statute will be corrected, where the other provisions of the act or the legislative journals furnish such means of correcting such apparent mistakes as will fairly carry out the intent of the Legislature. State ex rel. Leslie et al. v. Bracken et al., 154 Ala. 151, 45 So. 841 [(1908)]; Louis Pizitz Dry Goods Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 223 Ala. 385, 136 So. 800 [(1931)]; State ex rel. Norquist et al. v. Glennon, 227 Ala. 208, 211, 149 So. 257 [(1933)]; Dauphin & LaFayette Streets Railway Co. v. Kennerly, 74 Ala. 583 [(1883)].(5) Where there is doubt as to the meaning and intent of a statute by reason of the language employed, or arising from the context, courts may look to the history, conditions which led to that enactment, the material surrounding circumstances, the ends to be accomplished, and evils to be avoided or corrected, in order that the legislative intent be ascertained and given effect, if possible. McCreless v. Tennessee Valley Bank, 208 Ala. 414, 94 So. 722 [(1922)]; Prowell v. State ex rel. Hasty et al., 142 Ala. 80, 39 So. 164 [(1905)]."

232 Ala. at 197-98, 167 So. at 257 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). See also County Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson County v. State, 239 Ala. 276, 279, 194 So. 881, 883 (1940); and Guy H. James Constr. Co. v. Boswell, 366 So.2d 271, 273 (Ala. 1979), ("An obvious error in the language of a statute is self-correcting.... In such an instance, the Court may substitute the correct word when it can be ascertained from the context of the act.")

The House and Senate Journals mentioned above clearly indicate that the legislative intent in enacting Act No. 78-770 was to postpone the effective date of Act No. 77-607 from May 16, 1978, to June 1, 1979. It is apparent to us from our reading of Act No. 78-770 that the references to § 9910 and the June 1, 1979, effective date should have been within quotation marks so as to designate § 9910 as one of the sections of Act No. 77-607 being amended. Those quotation marks were apparently inadvertently omitted. To conclude otherwise would be to...