Sheffield v. State
Decision Date | 21 March 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-95-2038 |
Citation | 708 So.2d 899 |
Parties | Willie Elijah SHEFFIELD v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas Haas, Mobile, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Yvonne A. H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
PATTERSON, Retired Appellate Judge.
The appellant, Willie Elijah Sheffield, was convicted in a nonjury trial of theft of property in the first degree, see § 13A8-3, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment: that sentence was split and he was ordered to spend 12 months on work release and the remainder on probation, and was fined $1,000 to go in the crime victims compensation fund.
The charge in the indictment arose from a real estate transaction between the appellant and Lillian Andrews. The property referred to in the indictment was an interest in land owned partly by Andrews. The specifics of the transaction are not germane to this appeal. 1 We need address only one issue raised by the appellant.
The appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss his indictment, in which he argued that a parcel of land could not be the subject of a charge of theft of property in the first degree. Specifically, the appellant argues that because the location of real property cannot be changed, land does not fall within § 13A-8-1(10), which defines "property," in part, as "property (whether real or personal) the location of which can be changed." Whether an interest in real property can be a object of a theft of property appears to be a matter of first impression for this court.
In determining whether real property falls within this definition, we first consider the commentary to §§ 13A-8-2 through 13A-8-5, 2 which states in pertinent part:
Confusion as to the types of property that can be the subject of theft and theft-related offenses has not burdened Alabama alone. However, in most states, the evolution of the answer to this question has produced a broader definition of "property" than it has in Alabama--a definition that, in most instances, explicitly and specifically includes real property. To better understand the clutter from which such an all-encompassing definition has arisen and the power of its simplicity, we track this evolution through two reference materials.
The first is the commentary to § 223.2 of the Model Penal Code (1980). 4 It expounds on the Model Code's definition of "property" as it relates to the provisions concerning theft and related offenses. This definition is found in § 223.0, which reads in pertinent part:
Regarding the breadth of this definition, the commentary states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...similar to Rule 19.3, the legislature must have intended to change the existing law and depart from the prior law. Sheffield v. State, 708 So.2d 899 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). The 1995 revision of § 12-16-9 by the legislature eliminated the distinction formerly made between capital and noncapital f......
-
R.L.G., Jr. v. State
...legislature, which is obtained primarily from the meaning of the language of the statutes themselves. See generally Sheffield v. State, 708 So.2d 899 (Ala.Cr.App.1997). The statutes proscribing the offenses of first degree sodomy and first degree sexual abuse, for which the appellant was co......
-
State v. Adams
...must be read together and the determination of any ambiguity must be made on the basis of the entire statute.” Sheffield v. State, 708 So.2d 899, 907 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). “Because the meaning of statutory language depends on context, a statute is to be read as a whole.” Ex parte Jackson, 61......
-
Austill v. Prescott
...(Ala. 2001) (quoting Ex parte Children's Hosp. of Alabama, 721 So. 2d 184, 194 (Ala. 1998), quoting in turn Sheffield v. State, 708 So. 2d 899, 909 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ). See also Ex parte Welch, 519 So. 2d 517, 519 (Ala. 1987) (" ‘A statute should be construed so that effect is given to......