Mosley v. State, CR–13–0613.
| Decision Date | 06 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | CR–13–0613. |
| Citation | 187 So.3d 1194 |
| Parties | Quinton Devon MOSLEY v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1140778.
Charlotte Morrison, Montgomery, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and William D. Little, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
, Judge.
Quinton Devon Mosley appeals the circuit court's summary dismissal of his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Mosley, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sodomy, see § 13A–6–64(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975
. On May 15, 2008, the circuit court sentenced Mosley, under the voluntary sentencing guidelines ("the guidelines"), to two concurrent sentences of 20 years' imprisonment; the circuit court suspended those sentences and ordered Mosley to serve 5 years' supervised probation.
On June 12, 2008, however, the circuit court revoked Mosley's probation. On that same date, Mosley filed a "Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea," arguing that the circuit court failed to follow the terms of the plea agreement; the circuit court denied the motion. Mosley appealed the circuit court's decision to revoke his probation and separately appealed the circuit court's decision to deny his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. This Court affirmed, by unpublished memorandum, the circuit court's decision to revoke Mosley's probation, see Mosley v. State (No. CR–07–1828, June 19, 2009), 51 So.3d 406 (Ala.Crim.App.2009)
(table), and also affirmed, by unpublished memorandum, the circuit court's decision to deny Mosley's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, see Mosley v. State (No. CR–07–1808, June 19, 2009) 51 So.3d 406 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (table).1
On December 18, 2012, Mosley filed a "motion to correct his sentence," arguing that the circuit court "was without jurisdiction to impose a twenty-year sentence because the maximum sentence authorized by [§ ] 15–22–50[, Ala.Code 1975
,] is fifteen years." (C. 11.) The circuit court denied Mosley's motion. Mosley then filed, in this Court, a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the circuit court's decision to deny his motion, arguing that his sentence was illegal and that the circuit court erred when it failed to correct his illegal sentence. In an unpublished order, this Court denied Mosley's mandamus petition. We found that " ‘Mosley's non-prison sentences of twenty years were authorized by statute and thus complied with the Sentencing Guidelines,’ " and recognized that "Mosley may file a postconviction petition attacking the legality of his sentence[s]." We concluded that "Mosley cannot establish a clear legal right to the relief sought." See Ex parte Mosley 168 So.3d 174 (Ala.Crim.App.2013) (table).
On December 6, 2013, Mosley filed the instant Rule 32 petition—his first. Although he did not file the standard Rule 32 form found in the appendix to Rule 32, Mosley, through his counsel, filed a document entitled "Petition for Relief From Judgment Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure." (C. 10–14.) In his petition, Mosley, relying on this Court's decision in Little v. State, 129 So.3d 312 (Ala.Crim.App.2012)
, alleged that his 20–year sentences were "unconstitutional, not authorized by law, and exceed[ ] the Court's jurisdiction" because, he said, under § 15–22–50, Ala.Code 1975, the circuit court could not suspend his 20–year sentences.
On December 26, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss Mosley's Rule 32 petition, arguing that Mosley's claim is time-barred under Rule 32.2(c), Ala. R.Crim. P
., and that Mosley's claim is without merit.
On January 2, 2014, the circuit court issued a written order summarily dismissing Mosley's Rule 32 petition pursuant to Rule 32.7(d), Ala. R.Crim. P
. Mosley then filed a timely notice of appeal.
"This Court will not reverse the circuit court's order denying a Rule 32 petition absent an abuse of discretion. Grady v. State, 831 So.2d 646, 648 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)
. If the circuit court's decision is correct for any reason, it will be affirmed. Id. " Hawk v. State, 171 So.3d 96, 98 (Ala.Crim.App.2014).
Discussion
On appeal, Mosley contends that the circuit court erred when it summarily dismissed his petition because, he says, his suspended 20–year sentences are illegal. Specifically, Mosley argues that, although it complied with the guidelines to the extent that it ordered "non-prison" sentences, the circuit court erred when it imposed on Mosley sentence lengths of 20 years' imprisonment because, he says, the circuit court's "power to suspend a sentence is not derived from [the guidelines,] but rather from the Constitution and § 15–22–50[, Ala.Code
1975.]" (Mosley's brief, p. 7.) Section 15–22–50 provides that circuit courts may not "suspend the execution of a sentence imposed upon any person who has been found guilty and whose punishment is fixed at death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for more than 15 years."2 § 15–22–50, Ala.Code 1975.
Initially, we note that the allegation raised in Mosley's Rule 32 petition—that his sentences are illegal because, he said, the circuit court could not suspend his 20–year sentences—is jurisdictional. See Scott v. State, 148 So.3d 458, 462 (Ala.Crim.App.2013)
. This issue, however, was previously addressed by this Court in Mosley's appeal from the circuit court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
In that appeal, Mosley argued that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because, he said, the circuit court failed to follow the negotiated plea agreement. Specifically, Mosley contended that "he agreed with the State that he would be sentenced pursuant to the [guidelines], and the circuit court violated that agreement when it sentenced him to two suspended terms of twenty years which were, according to Mosley, above the sentences recommended by the guidelines.
" (Emphasis added). The resolution of Mosley's argument in that appeal required this Court to determine whether, under the guidelines, the circuit court had the authority to suspend Mosley's 20–year sentences; this Court answered that question in the affirmative. Consequently, Mosley's claim is precluded under Rule 32.2(a)(4), Ala. R.Crim. P.
Although we recognize that the State in its motion to dismiss Mosley's Rule 32 petition did not specifically assert Rule 32.2(a)(4), Ala. R.Crim. P
., as a basis for summarily dismissing Mosley's Rule 32 petition and that the circuit court did not specifically cite Rule 32.2(a)(4), Ala. R.Crim. P., as its basis for summarily dismissing Mosley's Rule 32 petition, under the circumstances of this case, this Court is not prevented from applying Rule 32.2(a)(4) as a basis for affirming the circuit court's decision. Cf. Ex parte Clemons, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (). This Court has recognized that "[t]he opinion in Ex parte Clemons appears to be grounded in due-process principles," which "requires that a petitioner be given notice of that preclusion ground." A.G. v. State, 989 So.2d 1167, 1179 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (emphasis added). Here, Mosley was, in fact, given notice that this claim had been previously addressed by this Court.
Specifically, the State in its motion to dismiss Mosley's Rule 32 petition alleged, in part:
(C. 33–34; internal citations omitted; emphasis added.) Thus, although not expressly citing Rule 32.2(a)(4)
, the State clearly argued that Mosley's claim had been previously addressed in Mosley's appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Additionally, although it did not expressly cite Rule 32.2(a)(4)
in its order summarily dismissing Mosley's petition, the circuit court clearly relied on this Court's decision in Mosley's appeal from the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea as a basis for dismissing Mosley's Rule 32 petition. Specifically, as set out above, the circuit court found:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
W.B.S. v. State, CR–13–0494.
...§ 15–20A–28, Ala.Code 1975, controls because it is the most recent expression of the legislature's will. See, e.g., Mosley v. State, 187 So.3d 1194, 1200 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (citing Ex parte McCormick, 932 So.2d 124, 138–39 (Ala.2005) ).10 Black's Law Dictionary also defines the term “quasi......
-
Singleton v. State
...defendant would be placed on probation for the remainder of his sentence, even if that sentence were 15 years.’)."Mosley v. State, 187 So.3d 1194, 1202 n. 4 (Ala.Crim.App.2015).In the instant case, Singleton was convicted of a Class C felony. See §§ 13A–6–69.1(b) and § 13A–4–2(d)(3), Ala.Co......
-
Laakkonen v. State, CR-17-1146
...availability and use of a wider array of sentencing options in appropriate cases.’"§ 12–25–2(a), Ala. Code 1975." Mosley v. State, 187 So.3d 1194, 1202 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (emphasis omitted). Although the Commission is charged with establishing the presumptive and voluntary sentencing ra......