Rogers v. State
| Decision Date | 11 September 1998 |
| Citation | 728 So.2d 690 |
| Parties | James B. ROGERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James B. Rogers, appellant, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Jack W. Willis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On December 16, 1988, James B. Rogers pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree theft of property, and three counts of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument. He was sentenced to 4 concurrent terms of 17 years' imprisonment. Rogers did not file a direct appeal. Ten years later, in June 1998, Rogers filed a Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim.P., petition for post conviction relief. That petition challenged Rogers's convictions on the bases that the sentences were excessive and that Rogers was not notified of the intent to enhance his sentences. According to the court's order, Rogers's petition was summarily dismissed pursuant to Rules 32.2(a)(5) and (c), Ala.R.Crim.P. Rogers now appeals the circuit court's dismissal of his petition.
On appeal, the State argues that pursuant to Rule 32.2(a)(5) and (c), Ala.R.Crim.P., Rogers's Rule 32 petition fails because it was not filed within the two-year limitations period and because he is not entitled to relief based upon any ground that could have been, but was not, raised on appeal, unless the court was without jurisdiction to render judgment or to impose sentence. According to Nichols v. State, 629 So.2d 51 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), the notice requirement for sentence enhancement is procedural rather than jurisdictional and can be waived by the failure to object. The State contends that notification is procedural rather than jurisdictional; therefore, Rogers waived lack of notification when he failed to object.
However, Rogers's primary argument is that his sentences are in excess of that allowed by law. He maintains that he did not receive notice of an enhancement mechanism such as the Habitual Felony Offender Act because none was applied. The maximum sentence for a Class C felony is 10 years' imprisonment. Rogers was sentenced to 4 separate and concurrent terms of 17 years' imprisonment for his Class C felonies. Rogers avers that the enhancement provisions were not used, and thus that his sentences are in excess of those allowed by law and are therefore illegal. Although Rogers was sentenced 10 years ago, an allegedly illegal sentence may be challenged at any time, because if the sentence is illegal, the sentence exceeds the jurisdiction of the trial court and is void. J.N.J. v. State, 690 So.2d 519 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). Because upon a review of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pettibone v. State
...jurisdiction of the trial court and is void.’ ” Cruitt v. State, 893 So.2d 1236, 1238 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (quoting Rogers v. State, 728 So.2d 690, 691 (Ala.Crim.App.1998)). “We are required to notice an illegal sentence and remand to the sentencing court for a proper sentence.” Glass v. Sta......
-
Bishop v. State
...its power and jurisdiction in assessing punishment at hard labor instead of imprisonment as provided by statute’); Rogers v. State, 728 So. 2d 690, 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the trial court erred by not considering the defendant's argument that his sentence exceeded the statu......
-
Bishop v. State
...its power and jurisdiction in assessing punishment at hard labor instead of imprisonment as provided by statute'); Rogers v. State, 728 So. 2d 690, 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that the trial court erred by not considering the defendant's argument that his sentence exceeded the statu......
-
McGowan v. State (Ex parte McGowan)
...by statute exceeds the jurisdiction of the trial court and is void. See Ex parte Batey, 958 So. 2d at 342 (citing Rogers v. State, 728 So. 2d 690, 691 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) ). Except for taking measures to cure a jurisdictional defect in sentencing and to sentence the defendant in accordan......