Pool v. State, 5 Div. 570
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | BOWEN |
| Citation | 570 So.2d 1260 |
| Parties | Randolph Eugene POOL v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 570 |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1990 |
Page 1260
v.
STATE.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1990.
Page 1261
Michael D. Cook, Lanett, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G.L. Marston III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
BOWEN, Judge.
Randolph Eugene Pool was convicted of the unlawful possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. This conviction must be reversed because the indictment failed to properly charge Pool with an offense.
The indictment charged that Pool "unlawfully possess[ed] marihuana, a controlled substance enumerated in Schedule I, Section 20-2-23 of the Code of Alabama, contrary to the provisions of The Drug Crimes Amendments Act of 1987, in violation of Section 13A-12-212 of the Code of Alabama." Prior to the enactment of the Drug Crimes Amendments Act of 1987, this indictment would have been sufficient to charge Pool with felony possession of marihuana under Ala.Code § 20-2-70(a) (1975). Watley v. State, 568 So.2d 852, 853 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). However, with the enactment of the Drug Crimes Amendments Act of 1979, the legislature repealed § 20-2-70 and enacted new statutes governing controlled substance offenses. "[T]he repeal of § 20-2-70 and the enactment of [these new statutes] was not a mere transfer of former Title 20 drug offenses to Title 13A. It involved a substantial rewriting and new definitions of the controlled substance offenses." Watley v. State, 568 So.2d at 854.
The possession offenses are now delineated in §§ 13A-12-212, -213, and -214. Section 13A-12-212 is entitled "Unlawful possession or receipt of controlled substances" (emphasis added) and it provides in pertinent part:
"(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of controlled substance if:
"(1) Except as otherwise authorized, he possesses a controlled substance enumerated in schedules I through V.
"....
"(b) Unlawful possession of a controlled substance is a Class C felony." (Emphasis added.)
Section 13A-12-213 is entitled "Unlawful possession of marihuana in the first degree" (emphasis added) and it provides:
"(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of marihuana in the first degree if, except as otherwise authorized:
"(1) He possesses marihuana for other than personal use; or
"(2) He possesses marihuana for his personal use only after having been previously convicted of unlawful possession of marihuana in the second degree or unlawful possession of marihuana for his personal use only.
"(b) Unlawful possession of marihuana in the first degree is a Class C felony." (Emphasis added.)
Section 13A-12-214 is entitled "Unlawful possession of marihuana in the second degree" (emphasis added) and it provides:
"(a) A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of marihuana in the second degree, if, except as otherwise authorized, he possesses marihuana for his personal use only.
Page 1262
"(b) Unlawful possession of marihuana in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor." (Emphasis added.)
Pool argues that he should have been indicted under § 13A-12-213 or -214 instead of § 13A-12-212. We agree. The three statutes were enacted at the same time, as part of the Drug Crimes Amendments Act of 1987. Section 13A-12-212 relates to the possession of controlled substances generally. Sections 13A-12-213 and -214 relate specifically to the possession of marihuana.
"There is a rule of statutory construction that specific provisions relating to specific subjects are understood as exceptions to general provisions relating to general subjects. Bouldin v. City of Homewood, 277 Ala. 665, 174 So.2d 306 (1965); Geter v. United States Steel Corp., 264 Ala. 94, 84 So.2d 770 (1956)." Murphy v. City of Mobile, 504 So.2d 243, 244 (Ala.1987). "Where two statutes are related to the same subject and embrace the same matter, a specific or particular provision is controlling over a general provision. Green v. Fairfield City Board of Education, 365 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1220 (Ala...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. American Home Prods. Corp., Civ.A. 00-D-1481-N.
...That is not a task for the judiciary, see Laidlaw Transit, Inc. v. Alabama Educ. Ass'n, 769 So.2d 872, 881 (Ala.2000); Pool v. State, 570 So.2d 1260, 1263 (Ala. Crim.App.1990), and the invitation is particularly inappropriate when tendered to a federal court sitting in diversity. Accordingl......
-
U.S. v. Robinson, 09-10846.
...to marijuana offenses, rather than applying the more general statutes prohibiting controlled substance offenses. Pool v. State, 570 So.2d 1260, 1262 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). "Where two statutes are related to the same subject and embrace the same matter, a specific or particular provision is cont......
-
Watford v. State, CR-90-1099
...substantially altered both the substantive definitions and the penalty provisions of controlled substances offenses. See Pool v. State, 570 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Ala.Cr.App.), affirmed, 570 So.2d 1263 (Ala.1990); Watley v. State, 568 So.2d 852, 854 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. quashed, 568 So.2d 85......
-
Siegelman v. Alabama Ass'n of School Bds.
...to rewrite the statutes. Reed v. Board of Trustees for Alabama State Univ., 778 So.2d 791, 794 (Ala.2000); Pool v. State, 819 So.2d 583 570 So.2d 1260, 1263 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 570 So.2d 1263 In short, the trial court erred in its construction of the 1995 directive and in enjoining the ......