Soles v. State
Decision Date | 28 September 2001 |
Citation | 820 So.2d 163 |
Parties | Karl SOLES v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Allison Wallace, Birmingham, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Kristi L. Deason, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
Kathryn King of Harris, Harris & King, Florence; and Melinda Morgan Austin of Holt, Mussleman & Holt, Florence, for amicus curiae Alabama Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, in support of the appellant.
On November 27, 2000, Soles entered a blind plea to the charge of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance (cocaine), a violation of § 13A-12-211, Ala.Code 1975. On April 6, 2001, the trial court, upon application of §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270, Ala.Code 1975, sentenced Soles to 10 years in prison, to be followed by two years of supervised probation.1 The trial court also ordered that Soles pay $1,000 pursuant to the Demand Reduction Assessment Act. See § 13A-12-281(a), Ala. Code 1975. This appeal followed.
During the sentencing proceedings, Soles moved the trial court to suspend or "split" the mandatory 10-year enhancement and cited § 15-18-8(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975, which had been amended effective May 25, 2000. The State objected. The trial judge decided not to suspend the 10-year enhancement and stated:
(C.R. 23-24.) Soles then objected to the trial court's decision not to suspend his sentence, and the trial court overruled his objection.
Soles argues that, pursuant to § 15-18-8, as amended, the trial judge had the authority to suspend the 10-year sentence imposed pursuant to the enhancements mandated by §§ 13A-12-250 and 13A-12-270 (hereinafter "the school/housing enhancements"). On appeal, the State agrees.
The school/housing enhancements, which were last amended in 1989, provide an additional penalty of "five years incarceration" if a person is convicted of the unlawful sale of a controlled substance and the sale occurred within three miles of a school (§ 13A-12-250) or within three miles of a public housing project (§ 13A-12-270). These sections impose additional penalties "with no provision for probation."
Section 15-18-8(a)(1), as amended, provides, in pertinent part:
(Emphasis added.) Among other changes, the Legislature added the emphasized portion; the amendment was effective May 25, 2000.
Soles contends, and the State agrees, that, although the newly amended § 15-18-8 conflicts with the probation proscriptions in the school/housing enhancements, the new amendment to § 15-18-8 mitigates the historically harsh mandates of the school/housing enhancements by allowing a trial court to suspend a sentence it imposes pursuant to those enhancement provisions.
Beavers v. County of Walker, 645 So.2d 1365, 1376-77 (Ala.1994). See also Tuscaloosa County Comm'n v. Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n of Tuscaloosa County, 589 So.2d 687, 689 (Ala.1991)
( . Moreover, this Court has stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Billingsley v. State
...military court to register with the sheriff of the county where he or she maintains his or her legal residence. In Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court stated: “ ‘The first rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature should be given effect. ......
-
Tariq–madyun v. State
...of a statute presents a question of law, and we review that issue de novo. Ex parte Quick, 23 So.3d 67 (Ala.2009). In Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), this Court stated: “ ‘The first rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature should be given effec......
-
Hankins v. State
...to only those convictions that occurred within the five-year period immediately preceding the current conviction. In Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163 (Ala. Crim.App.2001), this Court stated: "`The first rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature should be given effect......
-
Austin v. State
...either split the sentence in compliance with § 15-18-8, i.e., with no more than 5 years in confinement, see, e.g., Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163, 165 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)(holding that "the newly amended § 15-18-8 allows a trial judge to suspend a sentence imposed upon application of the scho......
-
Hard Time - a Return to Mandatory Minimums
...in a then recent opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals dealing with other drug sentencing enhancements. See, Soles v. State, 820 So. 2d 163, 165 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001) (enhancements for sale of drugs near schools and public housing projects may be split under the Split Sentence A......