Odom v. State
Decision Date | 28 May 1993 |
Docket Number | CR-92-446 |
Citation | 625 So.2d 1171 |
Parties | Leon ODOM, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Patrick Collins, Mobile, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Cecil Brendle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Leon Odom, Jr., was convicted of robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
The appellant argues that the indictment against him was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. Specifically, he argues that the indictment was deficient because, he says, it failed to state the amount of money taken in the robbery. Although the original indictment did not state the amount of money taken, the indictment was subsequently amended.
The appellant was arraigned on April 9, 1992, and he pleaded not guilty. On October 10, 1992, six months after the appellant was arraigned, he questioned the original indictment and moved to dismiss the indictment for the above-stated reason. The trial court denied the motion, stating that the objection was too late. The trial court was correct. As this court stated in Perry v. State, 568 So.2d 339 (Ala.Cr.App.1990):
Robbery is an offense against the person and the "amount of currency or coinage [taken in the robbery] is an immaterial ingredient of the offense" Acres v. State, 548 So.2d 459 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). The failure of the indictment to allege the amount of money taken in a robbery renders the indictment voidable, not void. Brown v. State, 481 So.2d 1173, 1176 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The failure to state a monetary amount "is not so deficient as to deny the accused due process of law." Williams v. State, 49 Ala.App. 74, 76, 268 So.2d 855 (1972). A defect in an indictment that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise this issue at the appropriate time. Brown, supra. The appellant waived this issue by raising it too late.
The appellant further argues that the trial court erred in allowing the indictment to be amended without his consent. The indictment, which originally failed to state any amount, was amended to state: "the amount and denominations of which are otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury." As the state correctly argues:
Rule 13.5, A.R.Crim.P. (Emphasis added.) The amount taken in a robbery is immaterial under Alabama's robbery statutes, §§ 13A-8-40 through 13A-8-44; therefore, the court committed no error in allowing the indictment to be amended without the appellant's consent.
The appellant further contends that the court erred in not dismissing the indictment when it learned that the grand jury did in fact know the amount of money involved in the robbery. A hearing was held, at which time evidence established that the victim of the robbery testified before the grand jury and told them the amount of money taken in the robbery. However, for the following reasons, the court correctly denied the appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment on this ground. This court in Grace v. State, 431 So.2d 1331 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), addressed this very issue. This court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doster v. State Of Ala.
...defect in an indictment that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise the issue ' in a timely manner. Ex parte Horton Odom v State 625 So 2d 1171 (Ala Cr App "1993" In the ~7nstant case, the failure of Counts TTT and TV to sneri fv the nronertv taken rendered the counts ......
-
Bush v. State
...that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise the issue in a timely manner. Ex parte Horton; Odom v. State, 625 So.2d 1171 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). In the instant case, the failure of Counts III and IV to specify the property taken rendered the counts merely voidable, and the ......
-
Doster v. State
...that renders it merely voidable is waived by the failure to raise the issue in a timely manner. Ex parte Horton; Odom v. State, 625 So.2d 1171 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). In the instant case, the failure of Counts III and IV to specify the property taken rendered the counts merely voidable, and the ......
-
Lane v. State
...him. Ex parte Tomlin, 443 So.2d 59, 62 (Ala.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 954, 104 S.Ct. 2160, 80 L.Ed.2d 545 (1984); Odom v. State, 625 So.2d 1171 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). When the accused pleads not guilty to a charge in an indictment without raising any question about the name appearing on t......