Motley v. State, 8 Div. 544
| Decision Date | 27 October 1981 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 544 |
| Citation | 409 So.2d 945 |
| Parties | John Russell MOTLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jimmy F. Carnes, Albertville, and Clark E. Johnson III, Arab, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Robert S. Thompson, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by an indigent from a conviction of attempt to commit murder. After a plea of guilty, appellant was adjudged an habitual offender and sentenced to life without parole.
Briefly, the facts in this case show that the appellant, under the guise of using the telephone, entered the victim's home, grabbed her, and demanded money. When she replied that she did not have any, the appellant tore part of her clothes from her body and attempted to rape her at knife point. The victim struggled and the appellant stabbed her approximately twelve times in an attempt to cut her throat and broke a rocking chair over her head. The appellant then went into a room where the victim's infant child was crying, picked up the child, and turned and ran from the house when he heard the sound of a car driving up.
No contention is made that the guilty plea was involuntary. Nonetheless, we have examined the record and have found the plea to be voluntary and not induced or coerced. The record shows court Exhibit A, or an "Ireland Form" outlining the appellant's rights in compliance with Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Also the record indicates that the questions by the judge and answers by the appellant demonstrate that the appellant understood the rights he was waiving by his plea of guilty. Under these circumstances, we believe the plea of guilty was in complete compliance with Boykin, supra.
At the sentencing hearing for the determination of whether the appellant was to be treated as an habitual offender under § 13A-5-9, Code of Alabama 1975, the appellant admitted he had been previously convicted of six felonies, to-wit: five burglaries in the second degree and one grand larceny.
I
The appellant's only contention is that the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Act is unconstitutional because it does not subject drug offenders to the enhanced punishment all other offenders receive for repeated felonies. Appellant claims that this difference in treatment denies him equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In our judgment, however, no equal protection question is presented because we hold that the legislature did not intend to exclude drug-related offenses from the operation of the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Section 13A-5-9, supra, directs that "a criminal defendant (who) has been previously convicted of any felony" be punished according to its terms. Under § 20-2-70,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 977
...sentence is in excess of that authorized by law. He claims that under sections 13A-5-1(b) and 13A-5-4, as well as Motley v. State, 409 So.2d 945 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), he should have been sentenced to no more than ten years, the maximum for a Class C felony under Title "Alternatively, he argues......
-
Ex parte Coker
...1981); Perry v. State, 407 So. 2d 183 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); Smith v. State, 409 So. 2d 927 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981); Motley v. State, 409 So. 2d 945 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981). Chap. 1. General Provisio......
-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 578
...sentence is in excess of that authorized by law. He claims that under sections 13A-5-1(b) and 13A-5-4, as well as Motley v. State, 409 So.2d 945 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), he should have been sentenced to no more than ten years, the maximum for a Class C felony under Title Alternatively, he argues ......
-
Thompson v. State
...are not classified does not make a drug offense any less a felony or the perpetrator any less a habitual offender. In Motley v. State, 409 So.2d 945 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), the court answered an argument made by a defendant, convicted of attempted murder, that drug offenders were not treated as ......