State v. Drewry, 6 Div. 290
Decision Date | 10 November 1987 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 290 |
Citation | 519 So.2d 591 |
Parties | Ex parte: State of Alabama. (In re: STATE of Alabama v. John Norwood DREWRY). |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
This is an original petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Attorney General for the State of Alabama seeking to compel the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County to set aside its order granting probation to a defendant convicted of trafficking in marijuana.
In September of 1984, John Norwood Drewry pleaded guilty and was convicted of trafficking in cannabis in violation of Alabama Code 1975, § 20-2-80. Thereafter, Drewry's attorney contacted the District Attorney's Office in Tuscaloosa County in an effort to secure probation or a reduced sentence for his client.
The particular facts surrounding any assistance Drewry may or may not have given law enforcement in an effort to secure probation will not be revealed inasmuch as the trial court has ordered that "the records in this case be ... sealed and not ... released without court order."
At the sentencing hearing, the Assistant District Attorney refused to recommend probation and opposed Drewry's receiving any consideration under § 20-2-81(b). However, the sentencing judge found that Drewry was "entitled to consideration for probation" and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment, which he suspended and ordered Drewry placed on probation after serving sixty days in the county jail. Drewry was also fined $25,000 and ordered to pay $25 to the Victims' Compensation Fund.
The Attorney General filed the petition for writ of mandamus in this Court contending that a sentencing judge is not authorized to grant a person convicted of trafficking in cannabis under § 20-2-80(1)(a), a reduced sentenced or probation under § 20-2-81(b) absent an appropriate motion by the District Attorney.
The controlling statute is § 20-2-81, Alabama Code 1975, which provides:
In sentencing Drewry and in granting probation, the sentencing judge issued the following written order, dated January 12, 1987:
On April 28th of 1987, an additional order was issued:
The meaning of § 20-2-81 and the intent of the legislature is clear. Ex parte Jones, 444 So.2d 888, 890 (Ala.1983) ( ). See also Roberts v. State, 482 So.2d 1293 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) ( ). We reject the Attorney General's argument that all persons convicted must serve a minimum of three years' imprisonment even if probation is granted.
In this case, probation was improperly granted.
In the amended order of the sentencing judge, reference is made to the case of "Ex parte John Lloyd Sides." Sides v. State, 501 So.2d 1259, 1261 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), reversed, Ex parte Sides, 501 So.2d 1262 (Ala.1986), involved the issue of whether or not a defendant, before pleading guilty, could compel the enforcement of a plea bargain agreement and require the district attorney to file a motion under § 20-2-81(b) for reduction or suspension of sentence. This Court held that mandamus was not the proper remedy because the accused had not yet pleaded guilty and because the filing of the motion and its grant or denial were discretionary with the prosecutor and the sentencing judge. In so finding, this Court held:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Todd
... ... Appellate Division ... Submitted Nov. 29, 1989 ... Decided Feb. 6, 1990 ... [570 A.2d 21] ... Page 447 ... Bowers, ... See State v. Blow, 237 N.J.Super. 184, 567 A.2d 253 (App.Div.1989); State v. Ogar, 229 N.J.Super. 459, 551 A.2d 1037 (App.Div.1989); ... However, see State v. Drewry, 519 So.2d 591, 596-597 (Ala.Cr.App.1987) where the court subjected such ... ...
-
Hinkle v. State, CR-09-0448
...the person provides substantial assistance in the arrest or conviction of parties involved in the crime. Hinkle cites State v. Drewry, 519 So. 2d 591 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987), for the proposition that the State unintentionally failed to allow Hinkle to provide "substantial assistance" and the......
-
Hinkle v. State
...the person provides substantial assistance in the arrest or conviction of parties involved in the crime. Hinkle cites State v. Drewry, 519 So.2d 591 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), for the proposition that the State unintentionally failed to allow Hinkle to provide “substantial assistance” and the tri......
-
EX PARTE STATE
... ... Drewry, 519 So.2d 591 (Ala.Crim.App.1987) (court granted mandamus relief to ... pretrial ruling on the admissibility of the evidence pursuant to Rule 15.6, Ala.R.Crim.P. Had it done so, the State could then have appealed the ... ...