State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 21 November 2008 |
| Docket Number | 1070536. |
| Citation | 13 So.3d 915 |
| Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re STATE of Alabama v. Dennis Lee JONES). |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
M. David Barber, dist. atty., and Brandon K. Falls, deputy dist. atty., Birmingham, for petitioner.
Richard Izzi, Birmingham, for respondent Dennis Lee Jones.
William M. Dawson, Birmingham, for respondent Judge Tommy Nail.
The State of Alabama seeks a writ of mandamus directing Judge Tommy Nail to vacate his order suspending the confinement portion of the split sentence he imposed upon Dennis Lee Jones's conviction. We deny the petition.
This petition for the writ of mandamus involves the Alabama Sentence Reform Act of 2003. Act No. 2003-354, Ala. Acts 2003. As amended by Act No. 2006-312, Ala. Acts 2006, the Alabama Sentence Reform Act of 2003 is codified at §§ 12-25-30 to -38, Ala.Code 1975 ("the Act"). Section 12-25-31(a) states the legislature's conclusion that the following are necessary for the provision of "a fair, effective, and efficient criminal justice system":
Section 12-25-34 directed the Alabama Sentencing Commission ("the Commission")1 to develop statewide voluntary sentencing standards and to present those standards to the legislature over a three-year period beginning in 2004. On September 30, 2005, the Commission adopted the "initial voluntary sentencing standards" (hereinafter "the standards," "the initial standards," or "the voluntary sentencing standards"), along with accompanying worksheets and instructions. See § 12-25-34(a)(3); § 12-25-34.1. The legislature approved the initial standards, along with the accompanying worksheets and instructions, for implementation effective October 1, 2006. § 12-25-34.1, Ala.Code 1975. According to § 12-25-34(a)(4), the initial standards are scheduled to be replaced by the "voluntary truth-in-sentencing standards," which the Commission is to present for approval during the 2009 regular session of the Alabama Legislature; if approved, the voluntary truth-in-sentencing standards will be effective October 1, 2009.
The general instructions for the initial standards and the accompanying worksheets state that the initial standards "cover the 26 most frequently sentenced offenses and 87% of sentenced cases." Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards & Worksheets 22 (2006).2 If an offense is covered by the initial standards, the applicable worksheets must be completed. § 12-25-35, Ala.Code 1975. Specifically, there are "three sets of worksheets and prison sentence length tables that divide the covered offenses into three offense types designated property, drug, and personal offenses." Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards & Worksheets 22.
Id. at 122. Thus, each offender sentenced under the initial standards is given a sentence-disposition recommendation (prison or non-prison) and a sentence-length recommendation. Although the sentencing court must "consider" the initial standards and the worksheets, the court may decline to follow the recommendations resulting from the application of the initial standards and instead impose a sentence "outside the voluntary sentencing standards in accordance with existing law." § 12-25-35(c), Ala.Code 1975.
In the underlying case, the grand jury indicted Jones on charges of the unlawful distribution of clonazepam, a controlled substance, in violation of § 13A-12-211, Ala.Code 1975, within a three-mile radius of a school, in violation of § 13A-12-250, Ala.Code 1975, and failure to affix tax stamps, a violation of § 40-17A-4, Ala. Code 1975. On November 5, 2007, Jones pleaded guilty, without a plea agreement, to violating § 13A-12-2113 and § 40-17A-4.
A violation of § 13A-12-211 is a Class B felony and a "covered offense" under the initial standards; consequently, the worksheets were completed for Jones.4 The instructions for the in/out worksheet for a drug offense recommend "prison" if the in/out score is eight or more. Jones's in/out score was 14; therefore, the in/out worksheet recommended "prison" for Jones.
The in/out worksheet has three recommended alternatives of sentence disposition if a recommendation of prison results from the completion of the worksheet: "Department of Corrections," "DOC at Community Corrections," or "DOC Split Sentence." Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards & Worksheets 35-36. The instructions state as follows regarding those alternatives:
Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards & Worksheets 36 (emphasis in original).
The instructions state that "[w]here Prison is the sentence disposition on the In/Out Worksheet, the prison sentence must be chosen from within the recommended range for the corresponding score on the Prison Sentence Length Ranges Table ...." Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards & Worksheets 27. Jones's score on the prison-sentence-length worksheet for a drug offense was 199.5 The Prison Sentence Length Ranges Table recommends the number of months—designated low, mid, and high—to serve for the "Total Sentence" and the "Time to Serve On Split."6 For Jones's score of 199, the recommendations are as follows:
"Total Sentence Time to Serve On Split
"Low Mid High Low Mid High
"45 87 130 24 30 36."
Judge Nail sentenced Jones to serve 5 years (60 months); that sentence was split, and Jones was to serve 24 months in the penitentiary followed by 2 years on supervised probation. Judge Nail then "probated" the "split portion of [Jones's] sentence ... condition[ed] on [the] completion of [an] alternate sentencing plan." State's brief, Exhibit B. Judge Nail cited Soles v. State, 820 So.2d 163 (Ala.Crim.App.2001), in support of his decision to probate the confinement portion of Jones's split sentence.
The State petitioned the Court of Criminal Appeals for a writ of mandamus directing Judge Nail to set aside the sentence and "to enter a sentence consistent with either the Initial Voluntary Sentencing Standards or to sentence under applicable law without regard to the Sentencing Standards." State's brief, p. 6. In an unpublished order, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the petition. Jones v. State (No. CR-07-0293, Jan. 7, 2008), ___ So.3d ___ (Ala.Crim.App.2008). The State has filed a similar petition in this Court.
The State contends that the sentence imposed on Jones is an illegal sentence because, the State argues, it complies with neither the initial standards nor existing law outside the initial standards. Citing § 12-25-35(c) and (f), Ala.Code 1975, Judge Nail and Jones contend that because Judge Nail indicated that he sentenced Jones under the initial standards, this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the State's petition challenging the legality of Jones's sentence.
Generally "[t]he State may file a mandamus petition challenging an illegal sentence." State v. Monette, 887 So.2d 314, 315 (Ala.Crim.App.2004) (citing Smith v. State, 447 So.2d 1334 (Ala.1984)). Section § 12-25-35(f) provides: "Failure to follow any or all of the provisions of this section, or failure to follow any or all of the provisions of this section in the prescribed manner, shall not be reviewable on appeal or the basis of any other post-conviction relief." The initial standards were patterned after Virginia's Sentencing Guidelines, and § 12-25-35(f) is nearly identical to § 19.2-298.01.F, Va.Code Ann.7 See Initial Voluntary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith (In re Smith)
...parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So.2d 153, 156 (Ala. 2000) ).’" Ex parte McCormick, 932 So.2d 124, 127–28 (Ala. 2005)." State v. Jones, 13 So.3d 915, 919 (Ala. 2008).Discussion I. Immunity Smith argues that he is immune from prosecution pursuant to § 13A-3-23, Ala. Code 1975.2 Section 13A-......
-
Hyde v. State
...a sentence ‘outside the voluntary sentencing standards in accordance with existing law.’ § 12–25–35(c), Ala.Code 1975."State v. Jones, 13 So.3d 915, 916–17 (Ala.2008) (footnotes omitted).In 2012, the legislature amended the Alabama Sentencing Reform Act of 2003 by enacting § 12–25–34.2, Ala......
-
State v. Watters (Ex parte Watters)
...Inverness Constr. Co. , 775 So.2d 153, 156 (Ala. 2000) ).'" Ex parte McCormick , 932 So.2d 124, 127–28 (Ala. 2005)." State v. Jones , 13 So.3d 915, 919 (Ala. 2008).Discussion Watters, in her petition to this Court, argues that, before being required to stand trial, she is entitled to a pret......
-
State v. Crittenden
...794 So.2d 1153, 1157 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). Though there are few cases addressing the Act, the Alabama Supreme Court in State v. Jones, 13 So.3d 915 (Ala. 2008), recently considered a mandamus petition filed by the State after a trial judge suspended the confinement portion of the split senten......