Smith v. State
Decision Date | 15 July 1986 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 414 |
Citation | 494 So.2d 182 |
Parties | James Lewis SMITH, v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John C. Cason, Montgomery, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Victor Jackson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
James L. Smith pled guilty to first degree rape and first degree burglary. Sentence was thirty years' imprisonment in each case, the sentences to run concurrently.
Since a defendant waives several constitutional rights by pleading guilty, due process requires that the plea be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act "done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences." Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970). "Subsequent to Boykin [v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) ], it has become established that the defendant must be informed of maximum and minimum possible sentences as an absolute constitutional prerequisite to acceptance of a guilty plea." Carter v. State, 291 Ala. 83, 85, 277 So.2d 896 (1973). If the defendant has prior felony convictions, he must be advised of the proper sentence to which he was subject under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. Abbott v. State, 459 So.2d 995, 996 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Miliner v. State, 414 So.2d 133, 134-35 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). See also Thompson v. State, 441 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Hall v. State, 418 So.2d 946, 948 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Alston v. State, 414 So.2d 488-89 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); McGhee v. State, 412 So.2d 327, 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). "The reason a defendant must be advised of the maximum sentence he could receive in pleading guilty is so that his plea will represent a knowing and intelligent choice among known alternatives." Chapman v. State, 412 So.2d 1276, 1277 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).
The record reveals that Smith was never informed of the proper sentences he could receive. Smith was separately indicted for first degree rape and first degree burglary. On January 6, 1986, Smith signed an "explanation of rights and plea of guilt" form, which stated in pertinent part:
This form did not inform Smith that he would receive two separate sentences or that he would be sentenced as a habitual felony offender. Additionally, the form did not state the correct potential sentence for the first time conviction of a Class A felony which is "for life or not more than 99 years or less than 10 years." Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-5-6.
On January 6, 1986, before accepting Smith's guilty pleas, the circuit court judge advised him that the potential sentence for rape in the first degree was "ten years up to life in the penitentiary" and that the potential sentence for burglary in the first degree was "ten years up to life." The judge also informed Smith, "If you have any prior felony or felonies, of course, and the State moves the Court to invoke the Habitual Offender Act and proves you have a prior felony or felonies, your sentence can be increased proportionately, based upon the classification of the prior felony or felonies." (Emphasis added.) This instruction does not satisfy the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed of the minimum and maximum potential sentence and is misleading in that it affords the impression that the application of the Habitual Felony Offender Act is discretionary. Before the guilty pleas were accepted, Smith did not acknowledge any prior conviction and the prosecutor made no indication that any existed.
On January 17, 1986, the sentencing hearing was held, at which time the following occurred:
The judge granted the State's motion and the prosecutor requested that Smith be given a life sentence. Defense counsel opposed this recommendation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dearman v. State
...... (Ala.Crim.App.2014) (quoting Brewster v. State , 624. So.2d 217 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)). "[D]ue process requires. that the plea be a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent act. 'done with sufficient awareness of the relevant. circumstances and likely consequences.'" Smith. v. State , 494 So.2d 182, 183 (Ala.Crim.App.1986),. quoting Brady v. United States , 397 U.S. 742 (1970). With these principles in mind, we turn to the specific issues. presented here. . . A. . . Dearman. ......
-
Jones v. White
...guilty, he subjected himself to the possibility of being sentenced to life without parole under the HFOA. See Smith v. State, 494 So.2d 182, 182 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) ("If the defendant has prior felony convictions, he must be advised of the proper sentence to which he was subject under the H......
-
Alabama v. Smith
...finding that respondent had not been properly informed of the penalties associated with the crimes to which he had pleaded guilty. 494 So.2d 182 (1986). The case was reassigned to the same trial judge. The State moved to reinstate the charge of first-degree sodomy; the trial court granted t......
-
White v. State
...Rivers. Accord, White v. State, 616 So.2d 399 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Looney v. State, 563 So.2d 3, 4 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); Smith v. State, 494 So.2d 182 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).' "Aaron v. State, 673 So.2d 849, 849-50 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). As this Court noted in White v. State, 888 So.2d 1288 "`The law ......