Reese v. State
| Decision Date | 01 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | CR-94-0770 |
| Parties | Richard Douglas REESE, Jr. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Selma Smith and Arthur Madden, Mobile, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Margaret Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant in this case, Richard Douglas Reese, was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during the course of a robbery. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. On this direct appeal, the appellant contests the trial court's denial both of his motion seeking youthful offender status and of his motion for reconsideration.
The appellant's only contention on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider any other factors except the nature of the crime charged in denying the appellant youthful offender status. However, the appellant is mistaken in that assertion, as the record reflects.
In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discretion. Morgan v. State, 363 So.2d 1013 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); see also, Ex parte Farrell, 591 So.2d 444, 449-50, n. 3 (Ala.1991). There is no set method for considering a motion requesting such treatment. Edwards v. State, 294 Ala. 358, 317 So.2d 512 (1975). However, the Youthful Offender Act, § 15-19-1, Ala.Code, 1975, requires that the court conduct a factual investigation into the defendant's background. Ware v. State, 432 So.2d 555 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). Generally, the trial court considers the nature of the crime charged, any prior convictions, the defendant's age, and any other matters deemed relevant by the court. Clemmons v. State, 294 Ala. 746, 321 So.2d 238 (1975). Moreover, the trial court need not articulate on the record its reasons for denying the defendant youthful offender status. Garrett v. State, 440 So.2d 1151, 1152-53 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), cert. denied (Ala.1983). Accord, Goolsby v. State, 492 So.2d 635 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).
The appellant relies on Watkins v. State, 357 So.2d 156 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 161 (Ala.1978), for his contention that the trial court may not deny youthful offender status after consideration of only one factor, i.e., the nature of the crime charged. However, there is no support in this record for the contention that the trial court considered only that one factor. The trial court, in fact, expressly stated that the appellant's motion for youthful offender treatment was denied "based on the investigation and other matters." (R.Supp. # 2, 3-4.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waldrop v. State
...issue for the first time on appeal. Thus, we will review his contention for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. In Reese v. State, 677 So. 2d 1239 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), this Court "In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discre......
-
Thompson v. State
...1152–53 (Ala. Cr. App. 1983), cert. denied (1983). Accord, Goolsby v. State, 492 So.2d 635 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986)." Reese v. State, 677 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995). A review of the trial record2 shows that, at the conclusion of the YO hearing, the circuit court stated: "Based on t......
-
Waldrop v. State
...issue for the first time on appeal. Thus, we will review his contention for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala.R.App.P. In Reese v. State, 677 So.2d 1239 (Ala. Crim.App.1995), this Court "In determining whether to treat a defendant as a youthful offender, the trial court has nearly absolute discret......
-
Flowers v. State
...(Ala.Crim.App.1983), cert. denied (Ala. 1983). Accord, Goolsby v. State, 492 So.2d 635 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).' "Reese v. State, 677 So.2d 1239, 1240 (Ala.Crim.App.1995)." "When deciding whether to grant youthful offender status, it is expected that the nature of the crime charged, along with ......