Pruitt v. State
Decision Date | 27 April 2018 |
Docket Number | CR–16–0956 |
Citation | 272 So.3d 732 |
Parties | Ashley Parkins PRUITT v. STATE of Alabama |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1170956
Brett Ashley King, Locust Fork, for appellant.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Laura I. Cuthbert, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the appellant, Ashley Parkins Pruitt, a school employee, pleaded guilty to two counts of engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years, a violation of § 13A–6–81, Ala. Code 1975, and two counts of distribution of obscene material to a minor, a violation of § 13A–12–200.5, Ala. Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Pruitt to 15 years' imprisonment for each conviction for engaging in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with a student under the age of 19 years; those sentences were split, and Pruitt was ordered to serve 1 year in jail and 2 years on house arrest followed by 3 years' supervised probation. For her convictions for distributing obscene material to a minor, the circuit court sentenced Pruitt to one year in jail; those sentences were split and Pruitt was ordered to serve six months in jail followed by three years' supervised probation. The court ordered that all four sentences were to run concurrently. The court further ordered Pruitt to pay $2,500 in fines, $250 to the crime victims compensation fund, and court costs.
During the guilty plea, the parties submitted an exhibit to the plea agreement in which they stipulated to the following facts:
(C. 44–45.)
Before entering her plea, Pruitt filed a motion to dismiss the charges pending against her on the basis that the statutes under which she pleaded guilty were unconstitutional as applied to her. At the time she entered her guilty plea, Pruitt filed a renewed motion to dismiss all five counts against her in which she reasserted her constitutional challenge and during her guilty-plea colloquy reserved her challenge to the constitutionality of the statutes. This appeal followed.
Pruitt contends that § 13A–6–81, Ala. Code 1975, is unconstitutional as applied to her. Specifically, Pruitt argues that her felony convictions should be overturned because, she says, the legislature never intended § 13A–6–81, Ala. Code 1975, to apply to teachers and students, 16 and older, who are not at the same school. Pruitt cites the United States Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), in support of her contention on appeal and contends that "[t]he Lawrence opinion, with Alabama's age of consent being sixteen, should protect Pruitt from prosecution for her sexual activities with Locust Fort students." (Pruitt's brief, pp. 9–13.)
Girard v. State, 883 So.2d 717, 719 (Ala. 2003).
Wesson v. State, 208 So.3d 1160, 1162 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015).
Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. In considering whether a legislative act is unconstitutional, we are guided by the following principles:
" "
Vann v. State, 143 So.3d 850, 854–55 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting McInnish v. Riley, 925 So.2d 174, 178 (Ala. 2005) ). In order to overcome the presumption of constitutionality, the party challenging the constitutionality of an act bears the burden of showing that the act is unconstitutional. State v. Worley, 102 So.3d 435, 449 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
Pruitt pleaded guilty to violating § 13A–6–81, Ala. Code 1975. At the time of the crime in this case, § 13A–6–81, Ala. Code 1975, provided, in pertinent part:
1
Pruitt does not dispute that she was a teacher at the time she engaged in a sex act or deviant sexual intercourse with the victims in this case. As a teacher, Pruitt was a school employee. See § 13A–6–80, Ala. Code 1975 (). Further, it is undisputed that the victims in this case were students. However, Pruitt argues that regardless of her status as a teacher, the facts of this case, namely, that the student victims were 16 years and older and attended a different school than the school in which Pruitt taught, resulted in the unconstitutional application of § 13A–6–81 in this case. Relying on Lawrence v. Texas, Pruitt argues that she engaged in sexual conduct with consenting parties under Alabama law who were "mature enough to consent to sexual relations." (Pruitt's brief, p. 13.) Pruitt's reliance on Lawrence, however, is unavailing.
In Lawrence, the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Texas statute that provided: "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. K.E.L.
...Morton, 955 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Richards v. Izzi, 819 So. 2d 25, 29 n.3 (Ala. 2001) ). See also Pruitt v. State, 272 So. 3d 732, 735 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) ("Statutes are presumed to be constitutional.")."This Court ‘ "should be very reluctant to hold any act unconstituti......
-
Hubbard v. State
...clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect." Pruitt v. State, [Ms. CR-16-0956, April 27, 2018) ] 272 So. 3d 732, 737-38 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). See also IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng'g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344, 346 (Ala.......
-
State v. Solomon
...to show that the teacher used his or her position to unduly influence the student's decision to consent. See Pruitt v. State, 272 So. 3d 732, 734–35 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018). In Pruitt, the defendant alleged that § 13A-6-81 could not be constitutionally applied to a teacher who engaged in sex......