Pickron v. State
| Decision Date | 15 March 1985 |
| Citation | 475 So.2d 599 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (Re Myra Jean PICKRON v. STATE of Alabama). 83-1064. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Douglas L. Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
D. Patrick Harris, Montgomery, for respondent.
This Court granted petitioner's request that we review the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case. 475 So.2d 593 (1984).
The sole question presented is whether a trial court loses jurisdiction to consider a motion to amend a sentence, which is filed within 30 days after the imposition of the sentence, but which is not presented to the trial judge within the 30-day period.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that "[a]lthough a motion to amend the sentence does not come within the precise language of Rule 13(c) [Temporary Rule of Criminal Procedure, effective March 1, 1982], we think it is within the coverage thereof in light of the clear intent of Rule 13 captioned 'Post-trial motions.' " The Court of Criminal Appeals was correct in noting that a motion to amend or correct a sentence does not come within the precise language of Temporary Rule 13, 1 and was also correct in holding that the requirement that post-trial motions be presented to the trial judge within 30 days is no longer the law of this state. It is true that under the provisions of Code 1940 (Recomp.1958), Title 13, § 119, all post-trial motions, in both civil and criminal cases, had to be called to the trial judge's attention within 30 days of judgment, but this requirement was not carried forward into the 1975 Code. The procedure applicable in criminal cases is provided for by Temporary Rule 13, Ala.R.Crim.P., which became effective March 1, 1982.
Based on the foregoing, we determine, as did the Court of Criminal Appeals, that because the motion is one made after the trial, it should be treated as one that need not be presented to the trial judge within 30 days. It was the intent of Temporary Rule 13, Ala.R.Crim.P., to abrogate the necessity of presenting post-judgment motions in criminal cases to the judge and entering orders continuing the motions in order to keep them alive. In this sense, Temporary Rule 13 corresponds with Rule 59, Ala.R.Civ.P., and accomplishes the same result as that rule.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., not sitting.
1 The Advisory Committee on Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure presented to this Court for adoption a Rule which would have clearly delineated the powers of a trial court to reduce a sentence, as petitioner sought to have the court do here. The Advisory Committee's proposed Rule 24.3 reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeFries v. State
... ... August 28--Trial court issued a written order denying the motion for new trial ... September 18--The appellant filed a motion to vacate the court's written order ... Former Rule 13, A.R.Crim.P.Temp., was modeled after and corresponded to Rule 59, A.R.Civ.P. Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 599, 600 (Ala.1985). It is proper to look to case law on Rule 59.1 to interpret Rule 13(d). Hooper v. State, 523 So.2d 469, 472 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Like Rule 59.1, Rule 13(d) required the "express consent" of the parties to an extension of the time period for ruling on a ... ...
-
Nichols v. State
...be filed within 30 days of the pronouncement of sentence") (citing Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 593, 596 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), affirmed, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala.1985)); Ward v. State, 527 So.2d 780, 782 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) ("[a] motion to withdraw [a] guilty plea must be filed no later than thirty day......
-
Dixon v. State
...mentioned in the Rules of Criminal Procedure, but this Court has held that such posttrial motions are governed by Rule 24. Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala.1985). See, also, Rose v. State, 598 So.2d 1040 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Further, if timely filed, such a motion may be presented to th......
-
Grosse v. State
...the motion outside the time limit, as long as the motion was timely filed. Nelson v. State, 733 P.2d 1034 (Wyo.1987); Pickron v. State, 475 So.2d 599 (Ala.1985). Illinois and the District of Columbia follow an interpretation similar to Florida: that the court is required to enter an order w......