Taunton v. State
| Decision Date | 16 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 564 |
| Parties | Ronald TAUNTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ronald Taunton, pro se.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen ., for appellee.
Taunton appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus wherein he contended that he was entitled to 454 days of jail credit for pretrial incarceration, pursuant to § 15-18-5, Code of Alabama 1975, instead of the 93 days credited. Pursuant to the state's motion to dismiss, the trial court dismissed Taunton's petition, upon its finding that the matter contested is properly reviewable in an A.R.Cr.P.Temp. 20 petition, and, thus, that venue is properly in the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County, Rule 20.5.
It is well established that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to determine whether the appellant has been credited with the correct amount of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for the offense for which he was eventually sentenced. See, e.g., Hardy v. State, 534 So.2d 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1988); Smith v. State, 504 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Boutwell v. State, 488 So.2d 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). However, the attorney general adopts the trial court's position in arguing that, since the effective date of Rule 20, April 1, 1987, habeas corpus is no longer the proper remedy in the instant situation. He considers the improper denial or erroneous calculation of pretrial jail credit to be improper sentencing which can be corrected by a new sentence proceeding, a remedy encompassed within Rule 20. See Rule 20.1(a). He further argues that judicial economy is well served by requiring the instant issue to be raised in a Rule 20 petition, for the judge and the records of the convicting court would be required to appear in the court of habeas corpus jurisdiction, should we consider habeas corpus to be the proper remedy.
We find both arguments to be unpersuasive, especially when considering the risk of the "chipping away" at the constitutionally mandated remedy of habeas corpus by the preclusions and rules set out in Rule 20 and the "muddying of the waters" on the issue of under what situation is which remedy appropriate. For example, if the asserted ground were cognizable under Rule 20.1(a), as the attorney general argues, it would be subject to a two-year statute of limitations, Rule 20.2(c); yet, the statutory scheme for the remedy of habeas corpus provides no statute of limitations, see § 15-21-1 et seq. Moreover, we consider the calculation of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial not to be a part of the actual sentencing proceeding. All § 15-18-5 mandates is that the sentencing court order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collier v. State ).
...Smith v. State, 504 So.2d 1224 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Boutwell v. State, 488 So.2d 33 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).”Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, 614 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). That holding has been consistently reaffirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals. See, e.g., Sundberg v. Thomas, 13 So.3d 43 (Ala.Crim......
-
Anderson v. State
...the proper procedure by which to review such a question: a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle. Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. denied, 562 So.2d 615 (Ala.1990). Section 15-21-6, Code of Alabama 1975, requires that a habeas corpus petition be ad......
-
Adcock v. State
... ... "It is well established that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to determine whether the appellant has been credited with the correct amount of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for the offense for which he was eventually sentenced." Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, 614 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), cert. quashed, 562 So.2d 615 (Ala.1990). "Where a person is confined in the penitentiary, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus 'must be addressed to the nearest circuit court judge.' § 15-21-6, Ala.Code 1975." Breach v. State, 687 So.2d 1257 ... ...
-
State v. Quick
... ... "It is well established that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper procedure to determine whether the appellant has been credited with the correct amount of actual time spent incarcerated pending trial for the offense for which he was eventually sentenced." Taunton v. State, 562 So.2d 614, 614 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) ... Section 15-18-5, Ala.Code 1975, provides: ... "Upon conviction and imprisonment for any felony or misdemeanor, the sentencing court shall order that the convicted person be credited with all of his actual time spent incarcerated ... ...