Mosley v. State, CR-06-0557.

CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals
Writing for the CourtWise
Citation986 So.2d 476
PartiesJames MOSLEY v. STATE of Alabama.
Decision Date31 August 2007
Docket NumberCR-06-0557.
986 So.2d 476
James MOSLEY
v.
STATE of Alabama.
CR-06-0557.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
August 31, 2007.

[986 So.2d 477]

James Mosley, pro se.

Troy King, atty. gen., and Marc Bass, asst. atty. gen., for appellees.

WISE, Judge.


The appellant, James Mosley, appeals from the circuit court's denial of his petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., in which he attacked his January 1996 conviction for child abuse and his resulting sentence as an habitual felony offender to 20 years' imprisonment. On November 22, 1996, this Court affirmed Mosley's conviction and sentence, by unpublished memorandum. Mosley v. State (No. CR-95-1125), 698 So.2d 799 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (table). A certificate of judgment was issued on February 4, 1997.

On May 28, 2006, Mosley filed this, his first, Rule 32 petition, in which he argued: (1) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him as an habitual felony offender because, he said, his sentence was illegally enhanced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act, § 13A-5-9, Ala.Code 1975 ("the HFOA"); (2) that he was not given notice that the State would be invoking the HFOA; and (3) that newly discovered evidence exists that proves that he did not commit the crime for which he was convicted. On September 19, 2006, the State filed its motion to dismiss, in which it contended that Mosley's arguments were both precluded from appellate review and without merit. On November 14, 2006, the trial court issued an order denying Mosley's petition. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Mosley reasserts the claims presented in his petition to the trial court.

Mosley first argues that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him as an habitual felony offender because, he said, his sentence was illegally enhanced under the HFOA. Specifically, Mosley contends that a violation of § 26-15-3, Ala.Code 1975, is not subject to enhancement under the provisions of the HFOA and, thus, that he was improperly sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment.1 A sentence that exceeds the maximum allowed by law is an illegal sentence affecting the trial court's jurisdiction. A challenge to an illegal sentence is "not precluded by the limitations period or by the rule against successive petitions." Jones v. State, 724 So.2d 75, 76 (Ala.Crim.App.1998). "[A]n allegedly illegal sentence may be challenged at any time, because if the sentence is illegal, the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Williams v. State, CR–12–1862.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 4, 2014
    ...––– U.S. at ––––, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 (noting that life-without-parole sentences are not foreclosed by Miller ); see also Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476, 477 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ("A sentence that exceeds the maximum allowed by law is an illegal sentence affecting the trial court's jurisdictio......
  • Pettibone v. State, CR–09–1530.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 26, 2011
    ...v. State, 14 So.3d 188, 194 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), citing Kennedy v. State, 929 So.2d 515, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). We agree with the State's construction of § 13A–6–67(b) for the reasons that follow. “In any case involving statutory con......
  • Brand v. State, CR–10–0376.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 27, 2012
    ...to the sentencing court for a proper sentence. See, e.g., Kennedy v. State, 929 So.2d 515, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).’ Glass v. State, 14 So.3d 188, 194 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). ‘Matters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional........
  • Brand v. State, CR-10-0376
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 16, 2011
    ...the sentencing court for a proper sentence. See, e.g., Kennedy v. State, 929 So. 2d 515, 523 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So. 2d 476 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).' Glass v. State, 14 So. 3d 188, 194 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). 'Matters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Williams v. State, CR–12–1862.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 4, 2014
    ...––– U.S. at ––––, 132 S.Ct. at 2469 (noting that life-without-parole sentences are not foreclosed by Miller ); see also Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476, 477 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) ("A sentence that exceeds the maximum allowed by law is an illegal sentence affecting the trial court's jurisdictio......
  • Pettibone v. State, CR–09–1530.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 26, 2011
    ...v. State, 14 So.3d 188, 194 (Ala.Crim.App.2008), citing Kennedy v. State, 929 So.2d 515, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). We agree with the State's construction of § 13A–6–67(b) for the reasons that follow. “In any case involving statutory con......
  • Brand v. State, CR–10–0376.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 27, 2012
    ...to the sentencing court for a proper sentence. See, e.g., Kennedy v. State, 929 So.2d 515, 523 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So.2d 476 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).’ Glass v. State, 14 So.3d 188, 194 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). ‘Matters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdictional........
  • Brand v. State, CR-10-0376
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 16, 2011
    ...the sentencing court for a proper sentence. See, e.g., Kennedy v. State, 929 So. 2d 515, 523 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005); and Mosley v. State, 986 So. 2d 476 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).' Glass v. State, 14 So. 3d 188, 194 (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). 'Matters concerning unauthorized sentences are jurisdi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT