Minter v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 815 |
| Citation | 543 So.2d 202 |
| Parties | Alfonzo MINTER, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
George H. Jones, Alabaster, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Gilda B. Williams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Alfonzo Minter was indicted for first degree theft of property, in violation of § 13A-8-3, Code of Alabama 1975; possession of marijuana, in violation of § 20-2-70(a), Code of Alabama 1975; and also under the statute which forbids certain persons from possessing a pistol, in violation of § 13A-11-76, Code of Alabama 1975. The pistol charge was dismissed at the request of the State and the trial court dismissed the marijuana charge at the close of the State's case. The appellant was convicted of first degree theft and was sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual felony offender.
The record reveals that on February 25, 1988, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the appellant was looking at used cars at Edwards Chevrolet Company in Birmingham. Jim Yerby, a car salesman for Edwards Chevrolet, testified that he spoke with the appellant for five or ten minutes about a 1985 Pontiac Trans Am and that he then took the appellant for a test drive. Yerby stated that, after he drove the car, he was going to give the appellant a chance to drive. Yerby testified that he got out of the car and put the transmission in neutral. After a brief discussion behind the car with the appellant, the appellant got in the car on the driver's side. The passenger side was locked. Yerby testified that he told the appellant to open the door, but that the appellant drove away. Yerby saw Patrol Officer Joseph Nolan shortly thereafter and reported the incident.
Police Officer Richard Miller was on patrol on February 27, 1988, when he saw a Trans Am parked in the lot of a Big B drugstore. He testified that the car attracted his attention because the store was closed. After answering another call, he returned to the parking lot. Miller then ran the tag number through a police computer and discovered that it was a stolen vehicle. He testified that he saw the appellant behind the wheel with the seat laid back. After the appellant got out of the vehicle, Miller found a pistol and a plastic bag with what appeared to be marijuana in the open console beside the driver's seat.
Beverly Whitt, an auto theft detective sergeant with the Birmingham Police Department, testified that, after Minter was properly advised of his Miranda rights, the appellant gave a written statement, the pertinent part of which stated, "When he got out of the car to let me drive back, I jumped in the car and took off."
The appellant raises two issues on appeal.
The appellant contends that he was denied a fair trial because the trial judge improperly consolidated the three charges for trial. The record reveals that the charges were consolidated for trial on May 31, 1988, after a hearing. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the appellant ever objected to this consolidation. Our review is limited to matters properly raised in the trial court. Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (). This court is bound by the record and we cannot consider arguments not supported by the record. Fuller v. State, 472 So.2d 452 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Moore v. State, 457 So.2d 981 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1053, 105 S.Ct. 1757, 84 L.Ed.2d 820 (1985); Hollins v. State, 415 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). There is no objection to the order of consolidation in the record and, therefore, the appellant failed to preserve this issue for appeal.
Our review of the record also indicates that the appellant failed to move for a severance and, therefore, his right to a severance was waived. A.R.Crim.P. (Temp.) 15.3(e).
The appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for theft, particularly on the element of "intent to deprive." The law is well settled that the element of intent may be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. McCord v. State, 501 So.2d 520 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); McMurphy v. State, 455 So.2d 924 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).
In Crowder v. State, 476 So.2d 1241 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), this court held that the defendant's failure to return a car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilkerson v. State
...challenged for cause. Consequently, the appellant's claim as to L.W. is procedurally barred from appellate review. Minter v. State, 543 So.2d 202, 203 (Ala.Cr.App.1989) ("[t]his court is bound by the record and we cannot consider arguments not supported by the With regard to M.T., the appel......
-
Salter v. State
...the evidence is so decided as to clearly convince this court that it was wrong and unjust." Wilbourn at 1004. See also Minter v. State, 543 So.2d 202 (Ala.Crim.App.1989); Fletcher v. State, 460 So.2d 341 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). Conflicting evidence presents a question for the jury and a verdic......
-
Cole v. State
...or claim of entitlement to a new trial because of the alleged "bleeding-over effect" on the charges under § 13A-6-69. Minter v. State, 543 So.2d 202, 203 (Ala.Cr. App.1989). Because it is being raised for the first time on appeal, there is no adverse ruling for this court to review. Leonard......
-
Walker v. State
...evidence of a third offense committed by the appellant. Thus, the appellant failed to preserve this issue for review. Minter v. State, 543 So.2d 202 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). The appellant's statements concerning consolidation made during his motion in limine implied that the consolidation would......